Don't know enough to know that they don't know

Little googling here in Finland. Here people are repeating as a fact: 80% of car drivers think they are better drivers than others.

Another recent study (whose source I can't remember at the moment) found that the people who thought they were the best at multi-tasking were actually the worst, when tested.

Again, US subjects. (A pattern emerging?)

I am intrigued that actual performance results in a straight line linear relationship of a kind best described by a simple linear regression. Shouldn't surprise me - and it doesn't - but am especially intrigued with this result. Of course none of the usual PT intellectually-challenged creos would understand this.

A look into Wikipedia for the "Lake Wobegone effect" ("where all the children are above average") takes one to Illusory superiority.

No wonder ID people truly believe that ID is on the cutting edge of research (what research?) while neo-Darwinism is slowly dying. LOL!

"I am intrigued that actual performance results in a straight line linear relationship of a kind best described by a simple linear regression."

Since they are plotting the average of the ranked percentile, it will be a dead straight line: the average percentile of the bottom 25% is 12.5%, the next 25% is 37.5%, etc.

And of course, when it comes to evolution, it's even worse than that. Not only do the know-nothings think they know it all, but they consistently ignore the opinions of the experts. Of course the claim is always that they are "biased". How hypocritical can you get? They have never even met these people, have no idea what they believe or why they believe it and yet they are willing to completely ignore the very people who have earned the right to an opinion. And of course they never admit their own bias, since that would obviously disqualify them by their own criteria.

You know, after reading this article, I made a concerted effort to self reflect and be honest on my skill levels in a variety of things.

One reason why this kind of thing is recognized is because it's depressing. It's almost painful to realize that one is merely average at some tasks and below average for almost everything else. True experts, those that are highly above average are, by definition rare.

In all but one case for every skill/task/knowledge area, there is someone better than you. And 1 out of 2 people that you meet will be better than you at some skill/task/knowledge area.

It is a truly humbling reflective period.

Olorin said: Another recent study (whose source I can't remember at the moment) found that the people who thought they were the best at multi-tasking were actually the worst, when tested.

in reality, only 50 % of the students could have been better than average.

That's a little bit sloppy:

Almost every human has more eyes than average...

In defense of Dunning and Kruger, they actually cover this in their discussion, where they speculate (to rather humorous effect) that they might be as incompetent as those they mock, since they feel confident in their findings.

DiEb said: in reality, only 50 % of the students could have been better than average. That's a little bit sloppy: Almost every human has more eyes than average...

DS said: And of course, when it comes to evolution, it's even worse than that. Not only do the know-nothings think they know it all, but they consistently ignore the opinions of the experts. Of course the claim is always that they are "biased". How hypocritical can you get? They have never even met these people, have no idea what they believe or why they believe it and yet they are willing to completely ignore the very people who have earned the right to an opinion. And of course they never admit their own bias, since that would obviously disqualify them by their own criteria.

in reality, only 50 % of the students could have been better than average.

The Founding Mothers said:

Olorin said:the people who thought they were the best at multi-tasking were actually the worst, when tested.

It's either Windows OS or women, right?

I did not think that Dunning and Kruger needed any defense, and I hope no one has misinterpreted my last paragraph. I was essentially making the same joke that Mr. Monotreme cites, but I forgot that the authors had beaten me to it.

I was sort of assuming a symmetrical distribution and therefore blurring the distinction between the mean and the median. Presumably there is a lower limit to how incompetent you can be and still get into Cornell (at least I hope there is). There is, on the other hand, presumably no upper limit, so I would guess that distribution is in reality skewed to the right. If that is so, then, as Professor Theobald points out, the majority of the population is below average, because the highly competent outliers pull the average up without affecting the median. All that means, I suppose, is that the median is the proper statistic to use.

Douglas, you as such a pedant.

We used to use self-assessment where I used to work and I found that if I plotted my staff's competencies against the self assessment the curve would actually go downward.

I think this is because you farm out the high risk stuff to the competent and farm out the drudge work to the incompetent.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

This is ubiquitous in humanity. Dunning Krueger go into the condition analogous to other medical syndromes where the patients flat out is in denial about their disabilities. Production and recognition are the same skill set.

if you cant taste sugar, you will have no idea sugar is in a cake, and never bake it right

if you are tone deaf and can't understand a C# from C you will never sing it right, falsely assume you are correct.

I have studied animation and in college nothing confused us more than people who thought nothing about their work was poor. They worked for a few hours to created imagery/motion that was so pathetic we would all give up during critiques, say nothing, and just let them waste that student loan for 4+ years
SAD!

From an evolutionary stand point it makes sense to me, If you know you can do it, you use your brain... and if you can't at least you're too dumb to think you can't, so you try anyway.. pass or fail.

It is probably good that youth has such ignorant confidence, to just act out and make a mark amongst your peers in your early teens is important. Establish dominance and be dead by 30

Sports ad's center on "just do it"
another one I see read's "smart has the brains but dumb has the balls"

humanity 101 imo.

Divalent said: "I am intrigued that actual performance results in a straight line linear relationship of a kind best described by a simple linear regression." Since they are plotting the average of the ranked percentile, it will be a dead straight line: the average percentile of the bottom 25% is 12.5%, the next 25% is 37.5%, etc.

Karen S. said: No wonder ID people truly believe that ID is on the cutting edge of research (what research?) while neo-Darwinism is slowly dying. LOL!

What is really sad is you see this 'balls "greater than" brains' in discussions about evolution and also climate science.

More informed or experienced people give the confidant+stupid people benefit of the doubt, naively assuming they have something to contribute.

In news organizations/reporting it is even worse, as they will give "equal" time to a different point of view, even if that point of view is shared by an inequivalent amount of information or by a small yet cantankerous/vocal group.

OgreMkV said: One reason why this kind of thing is recognized is because it's depressing. It's almost painful to realize that one is merely average at some tasks and below average for almost everything else.

Blessed are the stupid, for they can't realize it.

My wife and I agree on this: the OTHER one of us is definitely NOT in the 90% of drivers who are above average.

I wish that Dunning-Krueger were all that underlies creationism, but the sinister aspect of creationism is that it claims that intellectual dishonesty is intellectual honesty, and that appalling lies are shining verities.

We all know this, I'm just stating it.

They are seriously trained to misunderstand evidence, to make arbitrary and absolute lines between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" (quote marks denote the sliding, various, and almost always indefinite notions creationists have about those), and to deny the meaning of evidence that is accepted everywhere else--for instance, when they accept the evidence of common descent in their amorphous "microevolution."

And this is all supposed to be better than what "godless scientists" believe, hence their tiny "knowledge" constituted almost wholly of lies and/or distortion, becomes "higher knowledge" than are the results of honest education and thought.

Like ignorance, the ignorance of ignorance is something that is, in principle, curable. The counter-"knowledge" and anti-scientific views of the creationist is sometimes curable (not all are ineluctably close-minded) but often is not.

So Dunning-Krueger matters in creationism as well as elsewhere, but the problem is so much worse when false claims and dishonest "interpretations" actually come to be favored over a preference for honest methods and meaningful facts. I don't mean to detract from the importance of the ignorance that the ignorant have of their ignorance, no question, rather to point out that creationism is so much more resistant than is ordinary ignorance.

Glen Davidson

I find the 'know nothings' fall into either the category mentioned here, or the other category:

People who would lose money if their ideas were overturned. These folks are often smart enough to know they are defrauding, yet smart enough to keep pushing their memes.

It's the second group that worries me.

***Sorry - I ruled the rest of this comment out of order. -- Matt***

Karen S. said: No wonder ID people truly believe that ID is on the cutting edge of research (what research?) while neo-Darwinism is slowly dying. LOL!

I call it the Kruger-Dunning effect because it rolls off the tongue easier than Dunning-Kruger (and it's the author order on the original paper). I also think it is a truly monumental paper with a lot more to it than just the take-home soundbite. It's really worth reading in full.

One of the *good* things to take from it is that high-performers tended to *under*-estimate their competence. So if you are good at your job, you may be better at it than you think.

Another interesting observation, not often commented on, is that, "Paradoxically, improving the skills of participants, and thus increasing their metacognitive competence, helped them recognize the limitations of their abilities." This seems obvious, but at least it means that there is some hope that people can be educated about the deficiencies in their knowledge. This is where, I am afraid, I have to agree completely with Glen Davidson. The problem with creationism is not merely ignorance and lack of self-awareness, but wilful construction of anti-rational strategies. This it has in common with vaccine alarmism and 9/11 "Truthers".

Chris Lawson said: So if you are good at your job, you may be better at it than you think.

And thus Sarah Palin is explained. Has there ever been a more self-confident ignoramous?

Follow up studies have shown that you can fix the Dunning Kruger effect by being in contact with and learning from people who have the superior metacognitive skills. The scientific community has an advantage that the general public does not in that we have our work reviewed by domain experts. Even here, this is followed up by testing and repetition by third parties where even the metacognitive deficiencies of the "experts" can be corrected.

Both creationism and global warming denialism have the same corrosive effect on science. They isolate themselves from the experts who could correct their misunderstandings and they attack the peer review system as an evil conspiracy. Peer review is far from perfect, but it does correct from this near-universal effect. Another thing that people here need to understand is because of this effect even people who lead ID may vary well believe their own stories. The people in the pew certainly do. So, the lying accusation may backfire because they may reflect and conclude no they're are not. This in turn reinforces the isolation and deepens the effect. If on the other hand we can promote real conversation some people by finally listening to the scientific experts may break out of the vicious cycle.

Andrew Sullivan suggests that Palin's hiring of a columnist with no education or expertise in economics to research the European debt crisis for her can be explained by, "Well, there's always the danger that someone with more knowledge than she might actually disagree with her. And we can't have that."

But the problem is how do you convince people suffering from Dunning Kruger to learn?

For example, all of the Creationist trolls here, either they consider themselves superior beings towards scientists (who they view as subhuman monsters), or they have taken literal religious vows forbidding science education, or both.

How exactly do you have a conversation with such people, let alone convince them that they need to learn?

I strongly suepect that almost no one truly believes that ID is on the cutting edge of research.

I recall an argument/ discussion I had with a coworker who was frustrated with the (perceived) lack of skill/competence/intelligence/professionalism of personnel in a different dept. I reminded him that in our department, a 4yr degree was a minimum requirement to be considered for the job, and that many in our dept. have MBA's. Compared to the (other) dept. which didn't have the same requirements. I then (jokingly) said:

"...besides more than 1/2 the population has an IQ of 100 or below"

my colleague couldn't wrap his head around that

( I believe there is a misconception that "average" intelligence = dumb)

Stanton said: But the problem is how do you convince people suffering from Dunning Kruger to learn? For example, all of the Creationist trolls here, either they consider themselves superior beings towards scientists (who they view as subhuman monsters), or they have taken literal religious vows forbidding science education, or both. How exactly do you have a conversation with such people, let alone convince them that they need to learn?

Yeats summed this up in "The Second Coming":

"The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity"

Fitting epitaph for modernity.

Chris Lawson said: One of the *good* things to take from it is that high-performers tended to *under*-estimate their competence. So if you are good at your job, you may be better at it than you think. Another interesting observation, not often commented on, is that, "Paradoxically, improving the skills of participants, and thus increasing their metacognitive competence, helped them recognize the limitations of their abilities." This seems obvious, but at least it means that there is some hope that people can be educated about the deficiencies in their knowledge.

Stanton said: But the problem is how do you convince people suffering from Dunning Kruger to learn? For example, all of the Creationist trolls here, either they consider themselves superior beings towards scientists (who they view as subhuman monsters), or they have taken literal religious vows forbidding science education, or both. How exactly do you have a conversation with such people, let alone convince them that they need to learn?

TomS said:

Chris Lawson said: So if you are good at your job, you may be better at it than you think.

I recall hearing of exceptionally good performers at some task who have the fear of not being all that good. In the extreme, that they can have a secret feeling that their work is trivial.

( I believe there is a misconception that “average” intelligence = dumb)

Thank you. From the Wikipedia article "Impostor syndrome":

"The impostor syndrome, in which competent people find it impossible to believe in their own competence, can be viewed as complementary to the Dunning–Kruger effect, ..."

Rich Blinne said: This problem is compounded by the resurgence of populism in the Tea Party movement. This promotes "common sense" solutions over and against the "elites". Economic distress promotes populism and our period is no exception.

Rich Blinne said: I am really at a loss here. Neither my "soft" approach nor Steve Matheson's "hard" approach appear to be effective at all at reaching our evangelical friends. That's what makes this effect so insidious as the usual correctives do not work. This effect is most pronounced in the older population so all I can come up with is:

CW said: ...and the horse you rode in on.

CW said: Hell yeah! There's just nothing funnier than a little witty misogyny.

Chris Lawson said: at least it means that there is some hope that people can be educated about the deficiencies in their knowledge. This is where, I am afraid, I have to agree completely with Glen Davidson. The problem with creationism is not merely ignorance and lack of self-awareness, but wilful construction of anti-rational strategies. This it has in common with vaccine alarmism and 9/11 "Truthers".

Stanton said: But the problem is how do you convince people suffering from Dunning Kruger to learn?

You can’t convince them via a forum such as this. The issue is less psychological than sociological. Their identities are grounded in social networks that reinforce creationism. We’re not asking them to change their minds or question an idea; We’re asking them to face an existential crisis. A professional scientist might be wedded to an incorrect idea, but her social identity as a scientist is undermined, rather than reinforced, by refusing to examine the data. If she changes her mind she is lauded for her scientific objectivity. Creationists face the opposite situation. I have watched several close friends of mine over the years in the Bible Belt go through major identity crises as they attempted to honestly explore evolutionary science. Such a transformation takes time and depends upon alternative communities and social identities being available. Alternative: stop short and manage the crisis through pseudo-science and passive aggressive tactics. Think Dembski. The histrionics of the typical ID supporter are signs of a barely submerged existential crisis.

As a lawyer who handles lots of employment discrimination cases, I've had fun citing the Dunning-Kruger studies. An astounding number of such cases amount to a plaintiff saying, in effect: "I think I'm really good at what I do, so the only conceivable reason I didn't get the job was that I am a [fill in the blank]." Usually, the employer has a different view of the candidate's skills, which is entitled to prevail unless it is so obviously wrong as to suggest other motivations for the decision. Of course, some employers are subject to the Dunning-Kruger effect in their ability to size up candidates, but, fortunately, I haven't had one of those cases yet.

I am really at a loss here. Neither my “soft” approach nor Steve Matheson’s “hard” approach appear to be effective at all at reaching our evangelical friends.

— Rich Blinne

Another thing that people here need to understand is because of this effect even people who lead ID may vary well believe their own stories.

— Rich Blinne

harold said: B) Unfortunately, I think there's also a further complication. In not all, but many, cases, the fundamentalist Christian identity has been adopted by people as a rationale or publicly acceptable proxy for views which they know could provoke strong negative reaction if stated bluntly. Christine O'Donnell is not a rare example; many, many people gravitate toward fundamentalism because they start with biases and problems and seek out a new religion that enables rather than challenges them. So in many cases you're dealing with someone who voluntarily chose an identity which is grounded in science denial, for underlying reasons that provoke a lot of cognitive dissonance and defensiveness.

All we can do is try to limit the damage they do.

David Fickett-Wilbar said:

TomS said:

Chris Lawson said: So if you are good at your job, you may be better at it than you think.

I recall hearing of exceptionally good performers at some task who have the fear of not being all that good. In the extreme, that they can have a secret feeling that their work is trivial.

I hear that Paul McCartney has a fear that he's going to wake up some day and find out that it was all a dream. It's called the Imposter Syndrome, and I wonder if it's connected with the Dunning-Krueger affect.

Sylvilagus said: You can't convince them via a forum such as this. The issue is less psychological than sociological. Their identities are grounded in social networks that reinforce creationism. We're not asking them to change their minds or question an idea; We're asking them to face an existential crisis. A professional scientist might be wedded to an incorrect idea, but her social identity as a scientist is undermined, rather than reinforced, by refusing to examine the data. If she changes her mind she is lauded for her scientific objectivity. Creationists face the opposite situation. I have watched several close friends of mine over the years in the Bible Belt go through major identity crises as they attempted to honestly explore evolutionary science. Such a transformation takes time and depends upon alternative communities and social identities being available. Alternative: stop short and manage the crisis through pseudo-science and passive aggressive tactics. Think Dembski. The histrionics of the typical ID supporter are signs of a barely submerged existential crisis.

There is a genuine belief that accepting an evolutionary view of biological phenomena is a giant step on the road to atheism, and in learning evolutionary theory their children are in peril of losing salvation. Given the beliefs they hold, this is not a silly fear. From their perspective, atheism is a deadly threat, and evolution is a door through which that threat can enter to corrupt one’s child.

In my experience in the South, most fundamentalists are raised that way

An intriguing question is why the South seems to have more ingrained creationism to begin with.

Possibly apocryphal, and I have no citation, but I read somewhere that Einstein described himself as the most ignorant of men, since he KNEW how many things he didn't know.

Seems to me a sort of hubris-by-negative: I know so much that I'm aware of how many questions I can't answer, while most people don't even know there are questions. Clever, nevertheless.

A tongue-in-cheek item I did some years ago:
I have determined, after extensive surveying, tabulation, and data analysis, that the average creationist in the U.S. earns $21,387.29 in family income; owns 1.2 cars, 1.8 TVs, and 2.3 kids; and has, at some point in his life, answered to the name "Bubba". He has less than one year of college. Yet he knows more about paleontology than Bakker or Horner or Currie (or he thinks that what they know is wrong--same thing). He knows more about the definition of evolution than Gould or Dawkins. He knows more about biology than Dobzhansky or Mayr. He knows more about cosmology than Hawking, Smoot, or Witten, and more about human fossils than Johanson or the Leakeys. He knows more "true" geology than geologists, more physics than physicists, more astronomy than astronomers--and more about everything than atheists like Asimov or Sagan. Humble, they're not.

From their perspective, atheism is a deadly threat, and evolution is a door through which that threat can enter to corrupt one’s child.

But you are also neglecting to mention what could be done is a third way as suggested by E. O. Wilson in his ongoing outreach to Fundamentalist and other Evangelical Christians interested in preserving the "Creation".

Of the freshmen Republicans — marked in boldface below — 36 of 85 in the House and 11 of 13 in the Senate have publicly questioned the science. There are no freshmen Republicans, in the House or Senate, who publicly accept the scientific consensus that greenhouse pollution is an immediate threat.

I have to agree with Frank J, raven, and others who have been skeptical of your assertion that outreach has to come from within the Evangelical community. Steve Matheson, Keith Miller, and several others have been trying to do just that for years now. I think Steve has finally seen the light.

There are some in your community who are open to having a "notorious" New Atheis like Laurence Krauss speak to their church or school. I think that's great. Maybe Laurence won't convince most of the audience, but hopefully, will cause some to wonder why their fellow co-religionists seem intent on doing the intellectual equivalent of lemmings running off a cliff.

Am sorry Rich, but your approach, as well as Karl Giberson and Darrel Falk's, is just too concilliatory for the delusional fools who are your fellow "brothers in Christ".

John Kwok said: I have to agree with Frank J, raven, and others who have been skeptical of your assertion that outreach has to come from within the Evangelical community. Steve Matheson, Keith Miller, and several others have been trying to do just that for years now. I think Steve has finally seen the light. There are some in your community who are open to having a "notorious" New Atheis like Laurence Krauss speak to their church or school. I think that's great. Maybe Laurence won't convince most of the audience, but hopefully, will cause some to wonder why their fellow co-religionists seem intent on doing the intellectual equivalent of lemmings running off a cliff. Am sorry Rich, but your approach, as well as Karl Giberson and Darrel Falk's, is just too concilliatory for the delusional fools who are your fellow "brothers in Christ".

but it seems fair to me to argue that northern opposition to slavery contributed to the literalist religion we see in the South today.

jasonmitchell said: ( I believe there is a misconception that "average" intelligence = dumb)

Can a person of normal intelligence really understand the theory of evolution?

Can a person of normal intelligence really understand the theory of evolution?

Raven is imagining that everybody has his (or her) quantum of wits. Which kinda makes my point for me. Of course the theory of evolution makes perfectly good sense to him (or her). It makes perfectly good sense to me. The exceptions, however, should not make assumptions about the rule.

raven said:

Can a person of normal intelligence really understand the theory of evolution?

Could a person of normal intelligence even ask such a lame question? Evolution is easy. Evolution the fact. Life changed through time. Evolution the theory. How and why life changes through time. By RM + NS. All the rest is details and data. Mountains of details and data. I've found the Theory of Relativity to be much harder as well as the details of modern cosmology. I could summarize string theory in a few superficial sentences but the rest of it, forget it.

jkc said: ...not knowing that you don't know something is strong evidence of a learning disability. ...perhaps some of the subjects are in need of some learning support services. As for creationists, that's another story entirely...

Jim Harrison said: IQ scores are graded on the curve. Indeed, they have been renormed many times over the last hundred plus years. All that having an IQ of 100 means is that your score is at the middle of the current distribution. Whether the abilities that correspond to an IQ of 100 at any given time mean that you are dumb (or smart, for that matter) is a different issue.

CJColucci said: ...some employers are subject to the Dunning-Kruger effect in their ability to size up candidates...

I ran into this decades ago (paraphrased):

The Four Levels of Competence

1. You're so incompetent you don't know you're incompetent. (i.e., most evolution denialists)

2. You're incompetent but have learned enough that you realize you're incompetent - and if you're smart enough you either do something to increase your competence, or you learn how hide your incompetence.

3. You're competent but have doubts about your competence.

4. You're competent and know you're competent.

Am sorry Rich, but your approach, as well as Karl Giberson and Darrel Falk’s, is just too concilliatory for the delusional fools who are your fellow “brothers in Christ”.

FL said:

Am sorry Rich, but your approach, as well as Karl Giberson and Darrel Falk’s, is just too concilliatory for the delusional fools who are your fellow “brothers in Christ”.

Should be interesting to see Rich's response to that one, hmm?

FL said:

Am sorry Rich, but your approach, as well as Karl Giberson and Darrel Falk’s, is just too concilliatory for the delusional fools who are your fellow “brothers in Christ”.

Should be interesting to see Rich's response to that one, hmm?

1:30 am and I'm annoyed that I was on this site, cause I can't quite get to bed, and that's when i thought; "I wish I believed in god". I don't feel like I had a choice, seems more like faith lost me. If only I could just go: "of course! God loves only me and my faith and God made everything. Those scientists are stupid, they can't see it but eventually they will, boy will they feel stupid!"

But never once does a creationist say: "I wish I understood evolution and science... my life would be so much easier, but I can't, all I see is Gods will, purpose and divine intervention everywhere!"
..do they?

Even the learned can get into a rut, as Gould so humorously described the slow acceptance of Continental Drift:

"...the aging embryologist Karl Ernst von Baer, remarked with bitter irony that every triumphant theory passes through three stages; first it is dismissed as untrue; then it is rejected as contrary to religion; finally, it is accepted as dogma and each scientist claims that he had long appreciated its truth." - Ever Since Darwin, Stephen Jay Gould, pg. 160 in The Validation of Continental Drift, 1977

The difference is, of course, that Continental Drift had evidence behind it. Evidence that became so overwhelming that it changed the scientific view of the Earth.

Was it Mellotron/FL/Floyd Lee that inspired this essay?

The problem with the IQ system is not what it supposedly measures, but the fact that it is horribly abused. It was originally intended to identify the kids who needed more help in school. That was all. Binet certainly did not try and link it to any innate trait, in fact the reverse is probably closer to the truth - he invented it precisely because he thought the folks who scored low could improve with more tutoring and training.

FL said:

Am sorry Rich, but your approach, as well as Karl Giberson and Darrel Falk’s, is just too concilliatory for the delusional fools who are your fellow “brothers in Christ”.

Should be interesting to see Rich's response to that one, hmm?

Rich Blinne said: There is a (frustratingly) small number of evangelicals who still can be reached. Based on my personal experience I know that most evangelicals are not lying and are honestly seeking the truth. But, the current insular culture and media echo chambers makes it very difficult to persuade them. This means you have to gain their trust slowly and show that science is not a threat to our common faith. Being patient and longsuffering, being Christian virtues, is one of the ways to gaining that trust, not through clever words, but by showing Christian character to our brothers and sisters.

Getting back to the people have too low an IQ to understand evolution, that isn't really it.

If one looks at acceptance of evolution and the Big Bang among developed countries, the USA comes in at the very bottom, along with Turkey.

It isn't that Euros, Chinese, or Japanese are smarter than us, it has to do with the unique, religious baggage that we drag along and that slows us down.

The real champions in creationism are Moslem countries where 80-90% of the population are creationists. And those are stagnant societies, going nowhere, stuck in the Dark Ages with whatever technology and science they can get from the infidel West.

raven said: Getting back to the people have too low an IQ to understand evolution, that isn't really it.

John Vanko said: Even the learned can get into a rut, as Gould so humorously described the slow acceptance of Continental Drift: "...the aging embryologist Karl Ernst von Baer, remarked with bitter irony that every triumphant theory passes through three stages; first it is dismissed as untrue; then it is rejected as contrary to religion; finally, it is accepted as dogma and each scientist claims that he had long appreciated its truth." - Ever Since Darwin, Stephen Jay Gould, pg. 160 in The Validation of Continental Drift, 1977

Rich Blinne

E.O. Wilson's "outreach" wasn't intended to convert creationists to modern scientific thinking, it was intended to convince evangelicals that environmentalism could be justified on religious grounds as well as scientific and political grounds. It's a very different problem.

I would also say that, despite protests to the contrary, the "in your face" method is more effective than people think. It certainly hasn't been harmful to Rove or O'Reilly or Falwell to abuse and demonise (sometimes literally!) their opponents. It astonishes me how often we hear that confrontation is a bad strategy when the historical record shows that it is in fact hugely successful.

In extreme cases, it allows alcoholic psychopaths like Joseph McCarthy to amplify his relatively minor power as Wisconsin's senator into a position to destroy thousands of people's lives and careers while ignoring judicial process. Obviously I'm not in favour of reconfiguring McCarthyism, but judicious confrontation is a good thing -- I am quite sure that the Pope's recent small concession on the use of condoms has only occurred because of the relentless criticism by public health experts.

People have forgotten just how aggressive the founders of “scientific” creationism were. Duane Gish liked to refer to himself as a bulldog going for the jugular. His followers loved it.

That entire campaign involved full-page spreads in local newspapers around the country, aggressive taunting, debates, and scolding of supporters of evolution.

How can anyone forget Bill Buckingham or Don McLeroy of recent times? And all that proposed legislation introduced into state legislatures, all state and local school board introductions of creationism and intelligent design have been instigated by aggressive, in-your-face fundamentalists.

These people see this kind of stuff coming from their church pulpits constantly. The demonizing, the innuendo, the conflations of secular society with evil; these are all done with an air of aggressive certainty and a steady droning that eventually drives the message home to the gullible rubes who submit to this crap.

So some well-placed slap-downs of this crap can be quite effective. People whose sculls have been so numbed by the culture they have been immersed in all their lives could use a good metaphorical whack between the eyes with a two-by-four from time to time.

Deprogramming cult victims is not usually a very pretty process.

I don't worry much about things like "respect" or "confrontationalism" in this context.

I don't have to, and I don't think anyone else does, either.

As Harry Truman once said, "I just tell the truth and they think it's Hell."

ID/creationism is not only factually false and illogically constructed. It's also a fact that virtually all of its public advocates engage in behavior that is dishonest, to the extent of strongly undermining their credibility. They tend to construct straw men to attack, evade forums where they will be faced with strong criticism, repeat ideas that they know have been rebutted to naive audiences, smear the characters of people who happen to accept scientific reality, and deliberately take quotes out of contexts, among other things. I stand by that, and either I or anyone else here who is familiar with ID/creationism can easily back up any of these statements.

That's about all anyone needs to say about creationism (in greater detail where indicated).

That type of thing should be unacceptable to anyone who adheres to any mainstream ethical system, regardless of what religious traditions they may follow.

In addition, the evidence supporting big bang theory, the theory of relativity, the theory of evolution, "germ" theory of infectious disease, heliocentricity, and any other strongly established theory that someone may choose to deny for reasons of bias is, just that, strong.

Whether you call people "idiot" when you say this, or whether you call them "brother in Christ" when you say it, or whether you just say it, the message is clear and strong.

You can't be obsequious toward creationist dogma and honest at the same time, because it is nonsense, it is illogical, and a lot of it is dishonest. If you don't say that, you're not being honest, and if you do say it, it's a strong condemnation.

My apologies if any one is tired of Gould quotes.

"Since Man created God in his own image, the doctrine of special creation has never failed to explain those adaptation that we understand intuitively." - Stephen Jay Gould, in 'Organic Wisdom, or Why Should a Fly Eat Its Mother from Inside', pg. 91, in Ever Since Darwin, 1977 W. W. Norton & Co.

Rich Blinne said:

FL said:

Am sorry Rich, but your approach, as well as Karl Giberson and Darrel Falk’s, is just too concilliatory for the delusional fools who are your fellow “brothers in Christ”.

Should be interesting to see Rich's response to that one, hmm?

I readily admit that the current poisonous political environment makes my approach not to work. The environment also is self-reinforcing given the self-isolation and echo chambers I am observing in the evangelical sub-culture. But, at least it used to work and the "in your face" approach has never worked with evangelicals. It only elicits false sympathy because the Dunning Kruger effect makes evangelicals wrongly assume that the critiques of ID are due to them being picked on rather than due to what they are, incompetent. There is a (frustratingly) small number of evangelicals who still can be reached. Based on my personal experience I know that most evangelicals are not lying and are honestly seeking the truth. But, the current insular culture and media echo chambers makes it very difficult to persuade them. This means you have to gain their trust slowly and show that science is not a threat to our common faith. Being patient and longsuffering, being Christian virtues, is one of the ways to gaining that trust, not through clever words, but by showing Christian character to our brothers and sisters.

harold said: I don't worry much about things like "respect" or "confrontationalism" in this context. I don't have to, and I don't think anyone else does, either. As Harry Truman once said, "I just tell the truth and they think it's Hell." ID/creationism is not only factually false and illogically constructed. It's also a fact that virtually all of its public advocates engage in behavior that is dishonest, to the extent of strongly undermining their credibility. They tend to construct straw men to attack, evade forums where they will be faced with strong criticism, repeat ideas that they know have been rebutted to naive audiences, smear the characters of people who happen to accept scientific reality, and deliberately take quotes out of contexts, among other things. I stand by that, and either I or anyone else here who is familiar with ID/creationism can easily back up any of these statements. That's about all anyone needs to say about creationism (in greater detail where indicated). That type of thing should be unacceptable to anyone who adheres to any mainstream ethical system, regardless of what religious traditions they may follow. In addition, the evidence supporting big bang theory, the theory of relativity, the theory of evolution, "germ" theory of infectious disease, heliocentricity, and any other strongly established theory that someone may choose to deny for reasons of bias is, just that, strong. Whether you call people "idiot" when you say this, or whether you call them "brother in Christ" when you say it, or whether you just say it, the message is clear and strong. You can't be obsequious toward creationist dogma and honest at the same time, because it is nonsense, it is illogical, and a lot of it is dishonest. If you don't say that, you're not being honest, and if you do say it, it's a strong condemnation.

John Vanko said: My apologies if any one is tired of Gould quotes. "Since Man created God in his own image, the doctrine of special creation has never failed to explain those adaptation that we understand intuitively." - Stephen Jay Gould, in 'Organic Wisdom, or Why Should a Fly Eat Its Mother from Inside', pg. 91, in Ever Since Darwin, 1977 W. W. Norton & Co.

For western civilization as a whole, evolution theory has passed through all three of von Baer's stages.

But there are some retrograde Luddites still stuck on stage two ("it is rejected as contrary to religion"). Some argue with a special 'logic'. They make an interesting case study in the psychology of denial.

May I offer an example from the very pages of Panda's Thumb? These quotations come from a PT contributor - perhaps one of those Matt had in mind when he wrote the essay for this forum.

“Let me ask everyone here, do you believe in the law of cause and effect?”

"Laws of Logic are a way of thinking and aren’t a construct of humans they are a correct way of thinking, therefore are universal."

“God’s logic will always lead to the truth!”

"Logic is absolute and not a construct of man, because before man gave a name to the law of non-contradiction it still existed."

"The point of my little exercise on logic, is to demonstrate that logic will not work unless all facts are absolutely true,"

"Logic is correct thinking, and the purpose of using logic is to find the truth, ..."

”… it is illogical to attempt to apply logic to see if God exists …”

"I’ve not finished with logic yet, just wait and see!!! Be prepared!!!"

"I know exactly what logic means."

Those of us who earn our daily bread through the continual and repeated use of logical thinking tried to engage this poster in rational, logical discussion - to no avail.

He appears to have learned his brand of logic from Answers-in-Genesis' Jason Lyle and was not able to understand the consequences and contradictions of his various statements.

"Rational debate would be impossible if laws of logic weren’t universal, because the two opponents could simply pick different standards for reasoning. Each would be right according to his own arbitrary standard."

One thing I'm certain of - he proved his own point - his logic is not the logic I use every day.

Is he an anomaly, a mere foot soldier in the right-wing evangelical army of Ken Ham? Or is he the bellwether of a new political movement to turn the clock back to the Dark Ages?

May Reason prevail.

John Vanko said: He appears to have learned his brand of logic from Answers-in-Genesis' Jason Lyle and was not able to understand the consequences and contradictions of his various statements. "Rational debate would be impossible if laws of logic weren’t universal, because the two opponents could simply pick different standards for reasoning. Each would be right according to his own arbitrary standard." One thing I'm certain of - he proved his own point - his logic is not the logic I use every day. Is he an anomaly, a mere foot soldier in the right-wing evangelical army of Ken Ham? Or is he the bellwether of a new political movement to turn the clock back to the Dark Ages? May Reason prevail.

Slightly OT, but was brought up earlier in the thread. Evolution is easy to understand. Very, very easy:

Organisms pass on genetic information to their offspring. Over generations, the genetic information will tend to concentrate towards information that improves an organism's chance of reproducing. Because the process of replication is error-prone, new genetic information continually arises. Over time, this causes changes in organisms. The most obvious changes are in body shape, which we can observe easily and for which there are fossil records, but the process also results in speciation, ecological specialisation, biochemical changes such as antibiotic resistance, parasitism and counter-parasitism, symbiosis, environmental change, and other effects. These phenomena have been observed in the laboratory and in nature.

That's all you need to understand the essence of evolution. Sure, there's a lot more complexity to the story and a lot of scientific mystery and controversy about certain issues (e.g. the role of evolution in ageing, the best method of clade analysis, the extent and importance of kin selection in social insects). But you don't need to know everything about evolution to understand its basic principles any more than you need to understand Claude Shannon's work to understand the basics of how a mobile phone works. And it's about the same word count as three or four verses of Genesis.

Thanks for the correction on the spelling of Lisle's name.

AiG and all our special friends on PT insist upon a 'Cause' behind everything that we see in the world around us - moreover an ultimate 'Cause' - thus their 'law of cause and effect' (which does not exist in science).

They insist anything that can be conceived as an 'Absolute' must come from the ultimate 'Cause'. Natural explanations don't count, unless they're so well understood that no one attributes them to the ultimate 'Cause' any longer, like lightning and thunder and the common cold.

But natural explanations have sufficed, so far. At such time that the supernatural is the only possible explanation, then it will be accepted.

Until then, no deities required.

Chris Lawson said: Slightly OT, but was brought up earlier in the thread. Evolution is easy to understand. Very, very easy: Organisms pass on genetic information to their offspring. Over generations, the genetic information will tend to concentrate towards information that improves an organism's chance of reproducing. Because the process of replication is error-prone, new genetic information continually arises. Over time, this causes changes in organisms. The most obvious changes are in body shape, which we can observe easily and for which there are fossil records, but the process also results in speciation, ecological specialisation, biochemical changes such as antibiotic resistance, parasitism and counter-parasitism, symbiosis, environmental change, and other effects. These phenomena have been observed in the laboratory and in nature.

Chris Lawson said: Slightly OT, but was brought up earlier in the thread. Evolution is easy to understand. Very, very easy: Organisms pass on genetic information to their offspring. Over generations, the genetic information will tend to concentrate towards information that improves an organism's chance of reproducing. Because the process of replication is error-prone, new genetic information continually arises. Over time, this causes changes in organisms. The most obvious changes are in body shape, which we can observe easily and for which there are fossil records, but the process also results in speciation, ecological specialisation, biochemical changes such as antibiotic resistance, parasitism and counter-parasitism, symbiosis, environmental change, and other effects. These phenomena have been observed in the laboratory and in nature. That's all you need to understand the essence of evolution. Sure, there's a lot more complexity to the story and a lot of scientific mystery and controversy about certain issues (e.g. the role of evolution in ageing, the best method of clade analysis, the extent and importance of kin selection in social insects). But you don't need to know everything about evolution to understand its basic principles any more than you need to understand Claude Shannon's work to understand the basics of how a mobile phone works. And it's about the same word count as three or four verses of Genesis.

henry said: Evolution is easy to understand. The problem isn't understanding it. The problem is "where's the beef?" In Dr. Morris' debate with Dr. Miller in 1981, he quotes from Dr. Gould, showing that Dr. Gould says the fossil record doesn't have transitional forms. He further quotes that Dr. Gould cannot even imagine how a transitional form should look like. http://www.icr.org/article/things-you-may-not-know-about-evolution/ "The most famous living evolutionary spokesman, Dr. Stephen J. Gould, paleontologist at Harvard University, has made a career out of pointing out to his colleagues that the fossil record shows abrupt appearance and stasis. He is no friend of creation and yet as an honest scientist he must acknowledge this now well-known fact. He proposed the concept of "punctuated equilibrium" to account for the fossils in which life usually is in equilibrium, or stasis, and doesn't change at all. When a category of life encounters a sudden environmental shift, it changes rapidly into a different stable form, so rapidly in fact that it leaves no fossils. How convenient. Evolution goes too slow to see in the present, but it went so fast in the past it left no evidence. Gould is arguing from lack of evidence! "

"...it changes rapidly into a different stable form, so rapidly in fact that it leaves no fossils."

Creationist generalizations like this are completely and entirely misleading. Species with transitional characteristics between genera and family
are more abundant than they admit (they claim 'none'). Transitions between one species and another are less common but exist nonetheless.

Palaeontologists know this and have no time to suffer fools.

Niles Eldredge, co-author of Punctuated Equilibrium, in his book Time Frames set out to find the gradual transition of one trilobite species to another.

In most New York quarries with Phacops rana trilobites, one species of Phacops rana disappears 'suddenly' and another species of Phacops rana appears 'suddenly'. But with persistence Eldredge found one quarry, a little deeper in the geological section and thus slightly older, on the periphery of their range, in a backwater as it were, with slow almost indistinguishable transitions between the two.

A perfect example of Punctuated Equilibrium disproving the creationist claim that no transitional fossils between species exist -
putting the lie to special creation.

Creationist have generally conceded the transitions between species and genera and only insist upon separate creation/design of new "kinds" (or "baramins"), which generally seem to be something like taxonomic families. As far as the scientists are concerned, much of the evidence for evolution is not the fossil record. For example, there is non-fossil evidence of speciation. So, to complain about a lack of fossil evidence for speciation is misleading in two ways.

Henry wrote:

"How convenient. Evolution goes too slow to see in the present, but it went so fast in the past it left no evidence. Gould is arguing from lack of evidence!"

How convenient, god poofed everything into existence in the past and yet she refuses to continue to do so today. Henry is arguing from lack of evidence!

The fossil record that we observe is exactly what one would expect if descent with modification was responsible for producing the life forms we see today. It is absolutely incompatible with any creationist scenario, no matter how you try to define "kinds". It is also absolutely consistent with every other data set, including genetics and development. No amount of word games or quote mining is going to change these facts. The very act of trying to play such games tells you all you need to know about the intellectual honesty of creationists.

Dale Husband said: Henry, stop being an idiot. Morris was lying by distortion. He, like many YECs in that period, got a lot of their propaganda by quote mining and misrepresenting their opponents. Gould was explaining the appearant lack of transitional forms between species, but the transitional forms between families, orders, and classes in the fossil record are indeed well known and can only be explained by evolution, however it occurs. Besides, we cannot really identify species in the fossil record anyway. If a great Dane and a chihuahua were buried together, and their bones dug up millions of years later, would scientists even think they were the same species? No, I don't think so. And YECs would ask where is the transitional forms between them. Idiots! Gould's hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium is indeed consistent with how animals evolve. It may take about 10,000 years for a new species to arise in nature, but that is still a blink of an eye in geological terms. And artificial selection by humans makes new forms arise even faster, and then keeps those new forms for a long time after they prove to be useful to us. Morris was speaking pure nonsense.

DS said:

Henry wrote: "How convenient. Evolution goes too slow to see in the present, but it went so fast in the past it left no evidence. Gould is arguing from lack of evidence!"

How convenient, god poofed everything into existence in the past and yet she refuses to continue to do so today. Henry is arguing from lack of evidence!

John Vanko said: "...it changes rapidly into a different stable form, so rapidly in fact that it leaves no fossils." Creationist generalizations like this are completely and entirely misleading. Species with transitional characteristics between genera and family are more abundant than they admit (they claim 'none'). Transitions between one species and another are less common but exist nonetheless. Palaeontologists know this and have no time to suffer fools. Niles Eldredge, co-author of Punctuated Equilibrium, in his book Time Frames set out to find the gradual transition of one trilobite species to another. In most New York quarries with Phacops rana trilobites, one species of Phacops rana disappears 'suddenly' and another species of Phacops rana appears 'suddenly'. But with persistence Eldredge found one quarry, a little deeper in the geological section and thus slightly older, on the periphery of their range, in a backwater as it were, with slow almost indistinguishable transitions between the two. A perfect example of Punctuated Equilibrium disproving the creationist claim that no transitional fossils between species exist - putting the lie to special creation.

“How convenient. Evolution goes too slow to see in the present,..."

That will be news to population geneticists.

RWard said: “How convenient. Evolution goes too slow to see in the present,..." That will be news to population geneticists.

It's been ages since I've posted here, mostly owing to my lack of expertise on the particulars of Evolution, but when it comes to the subject of self assessment, I work in what amounts to a petri-dish for the Dunning-Kruger effect.

I am a G.E.D. teacher in a state prison system (building better criminals one G.E.D. at a time) and I am constantly exposed to what can best be described as wildly inaccurate self-assessments. My classes are filled with inmates who are absolutely certain of their intellectual competence, all evidence to the contrary.

An inmate with a second-grade math level,and who does not even have the multiplication table memorized, thinks he is ready for the G.E.D. math test. An inmate who cannot form a complete sentence thinks he is ready to take the writing exam. This attitude is the rule rather than the exception.

Excluding those inmates who are just plain b*tsh*t crazy, the attitude seems to stem from two basic sources. The catalytic source is their social group, which places a negative stigma on education (it is a tool for the weak/it is imposed by the man). If all of one's peers insist that having an education is a bad thing, then one tends to adopt that view for the sake of social harmony (they must conform in their non-conformity).

As long as the student remains immersed in that society, he will be predisposed to dismiss education as not only valueless but fraudulent. Since it's all lies made up by the man, one answer is as good as another. x^2 is the same as 2x because it's all a matter of opinion.

This leads to a inflated sense of competence not because the student thinks he's good at math, but because he thinks he's better than math.

I find that when I have a particularly opinionated anti-education student in my classroom, the performance of all the other students suffers because the one anti-student is enforcing what for them is a social norm.

The other common reason for falsely inflated self-assessment is the difference between the students self-awareness and his awareness of others. He understands his own point of view perfectly clearly, and it works for him (or at least it has so far). He does not, however, have an equally perfect understanding of his peers' (or anyone else's) point of view. This lack of understanding is the product of and results in confused and garbled communication. Faced with the clear window of his own perceptions (however false) and the perceived muddiness of other people's perceptions (however true), he assesses his own point of view as more comprehensible and therefore superior to his peers.

“How convenient. Evolution goes too slow to see in the present,…”

John Vanko said: "...it changes rapidly into a different stable form, so rapidly in fact that it leaves no fossils." In most New York quarries with Phacops rana trilobites, one species of Phacops rana disappears 'suddenly' and another species of Phacops rana appears 'suddenly'. But with persistence Eldredge found one quarry, a little deeper in the geological section and thus slightly older, on the periphery of their range, in a backwater as it were, with slow almost indistinguishable transitions between the two.

henry said:

John Vanko said: "...it changes rapidly into a different stable form, so rapidly in fact that it leaves no fossils." In most New York quarries with Phacops rana trilobites, one species of Phacops rana disappears 'suddenly' and another species of Phacops rana appears 'suddenly'. But with persistence Eldredge found one quarry, a little deeper in the geological section and thus slightly older, on the periphery of their range, in a backwater as it were, with slow almost indistinguishable transitions between the two.

Speaking of trilobites, here's a photo of fossil showing a footprint stepping on one. http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com

Here's what's the trilobite/footprint looks like, what it really is:

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/meister.htm

Just saves a little search time for anyone curious--I had to see it, found it quickly, and it's as dreary as anything else from henry.

Glen Davidson

Henry J said:

“How convenient. Evolution goes too slow to see in the present,…”

And continents move too slow for people to have seen the forming of the Atlantic Ocean. (But the geologic record is there, in the shape of the continents and the seafloor ridges, and there is also the fossil records on both sides of the ocean.) Pluto moves too slow to have seen a whole orbit. (But as far as anybody can tell, it follows the same orbital behavior as all other astronomical objects, even the ones that weren't recently demoted.) Earth's magnetic field moves too slow for us to have seen it reversed. (But it left evidence in the geologic record, and the physics is understood, even if not by me.)

Henry, I own this bridge in Brooklyn that I'll let go really, really cheap. Interested?

John Vanko said: Henry, I own this bridge in Brooklyn that I'll let go really, really cheap. Interested?

henry said:

John Vanko said: Henry, I own this bridge in Brooklyn that I'll let go really, really cheap. Interested?

You can have my bet with MrG. That's as cheap as I'll go. henry replied to comment from MrG | September 11, 2010 4:07 AM | Reply | Edit MrG said: henry said: There may a mountain of scientific evidences, but those evidences have to be interpreted and ICR does connect the dots. Well then, obviously very soon mainstream science will come around. H, I will bet you $50 to nothing that in 2020 that if I contact the geology departments of ten universities highly regarded for their scientific work, and three of them admit the Earth is really a few thousand years old, then I lose and I owe you fifty bucks. If I win, since this is a 50-to-nothing bet, you lose nothing. I’ll promise to pay. Is is a bet? If you want to alter the terms, we can discuss it. OK, you have a bet.

henry said:

John Vanko said: "...it changes rapidly into a different stable form, so rapidly in fact that it leaves no fossils." In most New York quarries with Phacops rana trilobites, one species of Phacops rana disappears 'suddenly' and another species of Phacops rana appears 'suddenly'. But with persistence Eldredge found one quarry, a little deeper in the geological section and thus slightly older, on the periphery of their range, in a backwater as it were, with slow almost indistinguishable transitions between the two.

Speaking of trilobites, here's a photo of fossil showing a footprint stepping on one. http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com

Aw shucks Henry. I don't want a wager. I need cold hard cash. You're too late anyway. The bridge already sold.

But I own the most important fossil quarry in the history of the world. Here's the fossil that was found there: http://www.nmsr.org/Archive.html

The initial reports were TRUE. The secondary reports were a COVER-UP organized by the secret international WOPAG (World Order of Palaeontologists Against God) to discredit this earth-shaking find.

They stole this GENUINE fossil and destroyed it. But I can let you have the quarry really, really cheap so you can find another fossil just like this first one.

You could become famous and finally destroy Darwinism. What do you say, interested?

John Vanko said: Aw shucks Henry. I don't want a wager. I need cold hard cash. You're too late anyway. The bridge already sold. But I own the most important fossil quarry in the history of the world. Here's the fossil that was found there: http://www.nmsr.org/Archive.html The initial reports were TRUE. The secondary reports were a COVER-UP organized by the secret international WOPAG (World Order of Palaeontologists Against God) to discredit this earth-shaking find. They stole this GENUINE fossil and destroyed it. But I can let you have the quarry really, really cheap so you can find another fossil just like this first one. You could become famous and finally destroy Darwinism. What do you say, interested?

henry said: I suggest saving 1/2 of your income each month until you reach your goal. It's much easier than peddling the Brooklyn bridge in your spare time.

The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.

Curious. Not sure why part of my last post got lost in transmission.

Should read, "consider Bertrand Russell's comments from the 1930s."

I blogged about it here:
http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2010/03/14/quote-of-the-moment-bertrand-russell-on-the-dunning-kruger-effect-64-years-prescient/

DS said:

henry said: I suggest saving 1/2 of your income each month until you reach your goal. It's much easier than peddling the Brooklyn bridge in your spare time.

I suggest saving 1/2 of your income each month until you reach your goal of taking an actual course in paleontology. It's much harder than peddling BS in your spare time, but at least you won't be so easily taken in by hucksters and charlatans. See Henry, the thing is, it wouldn't matter one bit if you produced a live trilobite and stepped on it yourself. The fossil record would still be what it is and you would still be dead wrong. I would suggest that you increase your knowledge.

raven said:

Can a person of normal intelligence really understand the theory of evolution?

Could a person of normal intelligence even ask such a lame question? Evolution is easy. Evolution the fact. Life changed through time. Evolution the theory. How and why life changes through time. By RM + NS. All the rest is details and data. Mountains of details and data. I've found the Theory of Relativity to be much harder as well as the details of modern cosmology. I could summarize string theory in a few superficial sentences but the rest of it, forget it.

Chris Lawson said: Slightly OT, but was brought up earlier in the thread. Evolution is easy to understand. Very, very easy: Organisms pass on genetic information to their offspring. Over generations, the genetic information will tend to concentrate towards information that improves an organism's chance of reproducing. Because the process of replication is error-prone, new genetic information continually arises. Over time, this causes changes in organisms. The most obvious changes are in body shape, which we can observe easily and for which there are fossil records, but the process also results in speciation, ecological specialisation, biochemical changes such as antibiotic resistance, parasitism and counter-parasitism, symbiosis, environmental change, and other effects. These phenomena have been observed in the laboratory and in nature. That's all you need to understand the essence of evolution. Sure, there's a lot more complexity to the story and a lot of scientific mystery and controversy about certain issues (e.g. the role of evolution in ageing, the best method of clade analysis, the extent and importance of kin selection in social insects). But you don't need to know everything about evolution to understand its basic principles any more than you need to understand Claude Shannon's work to understand the basics of how a mobile phone works. And it's about the same word count as three or four verses of Genesis.

Sounds just like IBIG.

Same failed arguments. Same "let me ask you this".

Do they all go to the same school?

John Vanko said: Sounds just like IBIG. Same failed arguments. Same "let me ask you this". Do they all go to the same school?

Kris said:

John Vanko said: Sounds just like IBIG. Same failed arguments. Same "let me ask you this". Do they all go to the same school?

Are you referring to the questions I posed?

Kris said:

Kris said:

John Vanko said: Sounds just like IBIG. Same failed arguments. Same "let me ask you this". Do they all go to the same school?

Are you referring to the questions I posed?

And what is "IBIG"?

henry said:

DS said:

henry said: I suggest saving 1/2 of your income each month until you reach your goal. It's much easier than peddling the Brooklyn bridge in your spare time.

I suggest saving 1/2 of your income each month until you reach your goal of taking an actual course in paleontology. It's much harder than peddling BS in your spare time, but at least you won't be so easily taken in by hucksters and charlatans. See Henry, the thing is, it wouldn't matter one bit if you produced a live trilobite and stepped on it yourself. The fossil record would still be what it is and you would still be dead wrong. I would suggest that you increase your knowledge.

Even scientists with PhDs are rejected just because they are scientific creationists. It would be waste of time and resources to take such a course because of the presumption of millions of years and slow, gradual changes.

Kris said: I'm curious about something. How would you answer if someone with little to no knowledge of evolutionary theory asked you the following questions? Where did the very first organism come from, and where did that earlier thing come from, and where did the thing before that come from, and the thing before that, and the thing before that, and the thing before that, and so on, and what proof do you have that what you say is true?

Dale Husband said:

henry said: Evolution is easy to understand. The problem isn't understanding it. The problem is "where's the beef?" In Dr. Morris' debate with Dr. Miller in 1981, he quotes from Dr. Gould, showing that Dr. Gould says the fossil record doesn't have transitional forms. He further quotes that Dr. Gould cannot even imagine how a transitional form should look like. http://www.icr.org/article/things-you-may-not-know-about-evolution/ "The most famous living evolutionary spokesman, Dr. Stephen J. Gould, paleontologist at Harvard University, has made a career out of pointing out to his colleagues that the fossil record shows abrupt appearance and stasis. He is no friend of creation and yet as an honest scientist he must acknowledge this now well-known fact. He proposed the concept of "punctuated equilibrium" to account for the fossils in which life usually is in equilibrium, or stasis, and doesn't change at all. When a category of life encounters a sudden environmental shift, it changes rapidly into a different stable form, so rapidly in fact that it leaves no fossils. How convenient. Evolution goes too slow to see in the present, but it went so fast in the past it left no evidence. Gould is arguing from lack of evidence! "

Henry, stop being an idiot. Morris was lying by distortion. He, like many YECs in that period, got a lot of their propaganda by quote mining and misrepresenting their opponents. Gould was explaining the appearant lack of transitional forms between species, but the transitional forms between families, orders, and classes in the fossil record are indeed well known and can only be explained by evolution, however it occurs. Besides, we cannot really identify species in the fossil record anyway. If a great Dane and a chihuahua were buried together, and their bones dug up millions of years later, would scientists even think they were the same species? No, I don't think so. And YECs would ask where is the transitional forms between them. Idiots! Gould's hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium is indeed consistent with how animals evolve. It may take about 10,000 years for a new species to arise in nature, but that is still a blink of an eye in geological terms. And artificial selection by humans makes new forms arise even faster, and then keeps those new forms for a long time after they prove to be useful to us. Morris was speaking pure nonsense.

It's pretty obvious that Jim Harrison meant the theory of evolution including the details and data.

John Kwok said: If you really understood science and evolutionary biology, you wouldn't have made this observation, which, while important maybe to some lay public, especially those who are religiously devout, has nothing to do with the science of evolutionary biology:

Kris said: I'm curious about something. How would you answer if someone with little to no knowledge of evolutionary theory asked you the following questions? Where did the very first organism come from, and where did that earlier thing come from, and where did the thing before that come from, and the thing before that, and the thing before that, and the thing before that, and so on, and what proof do you have that what you say is true?

Your comments pertain more to trying to understand the origin of life, and while that is not nearly as well known as the mechanisms for biological evolution, it is something that can be answered scientifically without inserting any religious mumbo - jumbo of the kind which interests apparently both you and Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographer Stephen Meyer.

Kris, are you aware that, contrary to popular belief and deliberate Creationist misinformation, the Theory of Evolution does not address nor is founded in the origins of life? Or, perhaps you can explain why it is necessary to understand the exact process by which life first arose in order before one can understand how bacteria evolve antibiotic resistance?

Furthermore, what are you ranting on about? That the fact that the public wants instantaneous gratification is another fatal flaw of Science? (Along with discussion, debate and controversy?) Or, that, because scientists do not yet completely and totally understand Abiogenesis, the Creationists have won, and Biologists should quit their jobs?

Oh, and RBH killed that other thread because it was clear that you doing nothing but trolling there. Or, can you explain to all of us why the moderators of this site should be forbidden from moderating their site as they see fit? Because you now claim ownership of this site?

Kris,

Actually science has answered the question "where and how did it all start". What science has not answered, and probably never can answer, is WHY did it all start. That is perhaps outside the realm of science. So what? If that's the question people want answered, then they are free to pursue whatever religious answers they see fit. That doesn't mean that science has not answered the other questions, or that the average person can easily understand the answers. It just means that the universe is complicated and that if you care about understanding it you have to do some work. That is not the fault of science.

So, what do you propose that scientists should do about people who only want the quick, easy answers to the most basic questions? So far you are long on criticism and short on suggestions.

DS said: Kris, Actually science has answered the question "where and how did it all start".

Kris,

The answer is the big bang.

Now, what are your suggestions about how to get people better informed about the findings of science? You do have some ideas don't you? You do want people to learn about science don't you? You don't want to be labelled a concern troll now do you?

Stanton said: Kris, are you aware that, contrary to popular belief and deliberate Creationist misinformation, the Theory of Evolution does not address nor is founded in the origins of life? Or, perhaps you can explain why it is necessary to understand the exact process by which life first arose in order before one can understand how bacteria evolve antibiotic resistance? Furthermore, what are you ranting on about? That the fact that the public wants instantaneous gratification is another fatal flaw of Science? (Along with discussion, debate and controversy?) Or, that, because scientists do not yet completely and totally understand Abiogenesis, the Creationists have won, and Biologists should quit their jobs? Oh, and RBH killed that other thread because it was clear that you doing nothing but trolling there. Or, can you explain to all of us why the moderators of this site should be forbidden from moderating their site as they see fit? Because you now claim ownership of this site?

Kris,

Wrong again. The theory of evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of life. If someone requires science to explain the origin of life to their satisfaction in order for them to accept evolution, they are free to do so. That doesn't man that they are justified, or right, or even being reasonable.

If people choose to deny the findings of science because science doesn't have all the answers, there is not much anyone can do about it. Placing an unreasonable burden on science dosn't do anyone any good.

Now, one last time, do you have any suggestions or not? Are you just being a concern troll or not? Do you have a problem with science or not?

DS said: Kris, The answer is the big bang. Now, what are your suggestions about how to get people better informed about the findings of science? You do have some ideas don't you? You do want people to learn about science don't you? You don't want to be labelled a concern troll now do you?

Kris said:

DS said: Kris, The answer is the big bang. Now, what are your suggestions about how to get people better informed about the findings of science? You do have some ideas don't you? You do want people to learn about science don't you? You don't want to be labelled a concern troll now do you?

I KNEW you would say the Big Bang. Can you prove that the Big Bang occurred just as science typically says it did? Can you explain why more and more reputable scientists are disagreeing with the typical Big Bang theory? Can you tell me with certainty what came/happened/existed before the Big Bang, with a focus on the origin of life? And what came before that, and before that and before that, and so on? That is what a lot of people wonder. In fact they may be the ultimate questions in many people's minds, including many scientists. Since science cannot firmly or verifiably answer those questions about the origin of life and the universe (and what there was before it), many people, including many evolutionary theory scientists, accept a "God" as the answer. It is human nature to want answers. If science (and/or atheists) wants to displace (or replace) "God" in the minds of the masses, it will have to come up with an answer that is strong enough to displace (or replace) the "God" mindset. In the meantime, don't be too surprised that a lot of people will choose the easy, and to them comforting answer; "God".

DS said: Kris, Wrong again. The theory of evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of life.

Kris said:

DS said: Kris, The answer is the big bang. Now, what are your suggestions about how to get people better informed about the findings of science? You do have some ideas don't you? You do want people to learn about science don't you? You don't want to be labelled a concern troll now do you?

I KNEW you would say the Big Bang. Can you prove that the Big Bang occurred just as science typically says it did? Can you explain why more and more reputable scientists are disagreeing with the typical Big Bang theory? Can you tell me with certainty what came/happened/existed before the Big Bang, with a focus on the origin of life? And what came before that, and before that and before that, and so on? That is what a lot of people wonder. In fact they may be the ultimate questions in many people's minds, including many scientists. Since science cannot firmly or verifiably answer those questions about the origin of life and the universe (and what there was before it), many people, including many evolutionary theory scientists, accept a "God" as the answer. It is human nature to want answers. If science (and/or atheists) wants to displace (or replace) "God" in the minds of the masses, it will have to come up with an answer that is strong enough to displace (or replace) the "God" mindset. In the meantime, don't be too surprised that a lot of people will choose the easy, and to them comforting answer; "God".

phantomreader42 said:

Kris said:

DS said: Kris, The answer is the big bang. Now, what are your suggestions about how to get people better informed about the findings of science? You do have some ideas don't you? You do want people to learn about science don't you? You don't want to be labelled a concern troll now do you?

I KNEW you would say the Big Bang. Can you prove that the Big Bang occurred just as science typically says it did? Can you explain why more and more reputable scientists are disagreeing with the typical Big Bang theory? Can you tell me with certainty what came/happened/existed before the Big Bang, with a focus on the origin of life? And what came before that, and before that and before that, and so on? That is what a lot of people wonder. In fact they may be the ultimate questions in many people's minds, including many scientists. Since science cannot firmly or verifiably answer those questions about the origin of life and the universe (and what there was before it), many people, including many evolutionary theory scientists, accept a "God" as the answer. It is human nature to want answers. If science (and/or atheists) wants to displace (or replace) "God" in the minds of the masses, it will have to come up with an answer that is strong enough to displace (or replace) the "God" mindset. In the meantime, don't be too surprised that a lot of people will choose the easy, and to them comforting answer; "God".

Ah, retreating into solipsism, standard troll move. Move the goalposts at the speed of light and never stop.

Kris said: Surely you jest?

Tell ya what, explain to me why it is that virtually everyone on these forums (and many other places) who is against the concept of a creator of life uses at least some aspect (if not all) of evolutionary theory to argue against it.

If (as you say) the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, then any argument that uses any part of the theory of evolution against the concept of, or a belief in, a creator of life, has no standing.

Does any one else think Kris is the wife of IBIG?

Same arguments. Same technique of short responses to long, thoughtful replies. Same flooding of the airwaves with misconceptions and self-importance. Same lack of understanding.

DS said:

Kris said:

DS said: Kris, The answer is the big bang. Now, what are your suggestions about how to get people better informed about the findings of science? You do have some ideas don't you? You do want people to learn about science don't you? You don't want to be labelled a concern troll now do you?

I KNEW you would say the Big Bang. Can you prove that the Big Bang occurred just as science typically says it did? Can you explain why more and more reputable scientists are disagreeing with the typical Big Bang theory? Can you tell me with certainty what came/happened/existed before the Big Bang, with a focus on the origin of life? And what came before that, and before that and before that, and so on? That is what a lot of people wonder. In fact they may be the ultimate questions in many people's minds, including many scientists. Since science cannot firmly or verifiably answer those questions about the origin of life and the universe (and what there was before it), many people, including many evolutionary theory scientists, accept a "God" as the answer. It is human nature to want answers. If science (and/or atheists) wants to displace (or replace) "God" in the minds of the masses, it will have to come up with an answer that is strong enough to displace (or replace) the "God" mindset. In the meantime, don't be too surprised that a lot of people will choose the easy, and to them comforting answer; "God".

Well in order to answer those questions you have to study science no =w don't you? Good luck with that. Or, you could just shrug, say GODDDIDIT and give up. Your choice.

“I’m curious about something. How would you answer if someone with little to no knowledge of evolutionary theory asked you the following questions? Where did the very first organism come from, and where did that earlier thing come from, and where did the thing before that come from, and the thing before that, and the thing before that, and the thing before that, and so on, and what proof do you have that what you say is true?”

So, you’re saying that if someone studies science they will surely find the “answer” to the origin of life (and the universe?), and that that answer will be firm and verifiable?

John Vanko said: Does any one else think Kris is the wife of IBIG? Same arguments. Same technique of short responses to long, thoughtful replies. Same flooding of the airwaves with misconceptions and self-importance. Same lack of understanding.

Kris said:

phantomreader42 said:

Kris said:

DS said: Kris, The answer is the big bang. Now, what are your suggestions about how to get people better informed about the findings of science? You do have some ideas don't you? You do want people to learn about science don't you? You don't want to be labelled a concern troll now do you?

I KNEW you would say the Big Bang. Can you prove that the Big Bang occurred just as science typically says it did? Can you explain why more and more reputable scientists are disagreeing with the typical Big Bang theory? Can you tell me with certainty what came/happened/existed before the Big Bang, with a focus on the origin of life? And what came before that, and before that and before that, and so on? That is what a lot of people wonder. In fact they may be the ultimate questions in many people's minds, including many scientists. Since science cannot firmly or verifiably answer those questions about the origin of life and the universe (and what there was before it), many people, including many evolutionary theory scientists, accept a "God" as the answer. It is human nature to want answers. If science (and/or atheists) wants to displace (or replace) "God" in the minds of the masses, it will have to come up with an answer that is strong enough to displace (or replace) the "God" mindset. In the meantime, don't be too surprised that a lot of people will choose the easy, and to them comforting answer; "God".

Ah, retreating into solipsism, standard troll move. Move the goalposts at the speed of light and never stop.

I didn't move any goalposts. Here are the original questions: "I’m curious about something. How would you answer if someone with little to no knowledge of evolutionary theory asked you the following questions? Where did the very first organism come from, and where did that earlier thing come from, and where did the thing before that come from, and the thing before that, and the thing before that, and the thing before that, and so on, and what proof do you have that what you say is true?" Why is it that the "troll" word is always trotted out when people can't or won't answer a reasonable question? Is that the best you can do?

Flint said:

Kris said: Surely you jest?

No, but you surely don't understand, and probably don't try.

Tell ya what, explain to me why it is that virtually everyone on these forums (and many other places) who is against the concept of a creator of life uses at least some aspect (if not all) of evolutionary theory to argue against it.

The argument isn't against "the concept of a creator", the argument is against MAGIC as an "explanation" for how and why life changes over time. The theory of evolution is a scientific (i.e. testable) alternative to the claim that some magical, indetictable, all-powerful entity for which no test can exist, is somehow diddling with reality in untestable ways.

If (as you say) the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, then any argument that uses any part of the theory of evolution against the concept of, or a belief in, a creator of life, has no standing.

The theory of evolution is a proposed explanation for how life changes over time. Now, it's quite possible that similar feedback mechanisms acting over long periods of time eventually produced what we today might regard as alive. But since we can neither observe nor test what might have happend 4 1/2 billion years ago, we can only speculate about such processes. Someday, we might even produce a laboratory demonstration that at least one proposed process works (that is, produces life), but that would only be a "proof of concept", it wouldn't tell us the process actually followed. So your objection needs to specify your creator a little better. If you mean, some magical entity that set our universe in motion 13 or 14 billion years ago, and then went away to let things play out as they would, then evolution is just one of the things the rules of our universe permit. If you mean, some magical entity who continues to diddle with life and micromanage reality in real time, then the theory of evolution is indeed an alternative proposal, which has the advantage of being falsifiable.

John Vanko said: Does any one else think Kris is the wife of IBIG? Same arguments. Same technique of short responses to long, thoughtful replies. Same flooding of the airwaves with misconceptions and self-importance. Same lack of understanding.

Maybe Kris is just trying to provide an example of someone who is so clueless that he doesn't even realize how clueless he really is. That is the topic of this particular thread now isn't it? Otherwise, all his big bang and abiogenesis crap is just off-topic nonsense, just like the last thread he tried to derail with the same crap.

Same arguments. Same technique of short responses to long, thoughtful replies. Same flooding of the airwaves with misconceptions and self-importance. Same lack of understanding.

I understand a lot more than you think. That’s why I said “someone”. You guys are so entrenched in your mindset (sound familiar?) that you can’t even imagine that anyone could possibly disagree with you in any way at all

Kris said: And are you aware that a lot of people think that the theory of evolution does pertain to the origin of life in a very important way?

Kris said:

John Vanko said: Does any one else think Kris is the wife of IBIG? Same arguments. Same technique of short responses to long, thoughtful replies. Same flooding of the airwaves with misconceptions and self-importance. Same lack of understanding.

It would be pretty tough for me to be someone's wife since I'm a man.

Kris said: It would be pretty tough for me to be someone's wife since I'm a man.

John Vanko said:

Kris said: It would be pretty tough for me to be someone's wife since I'm a man.

I'm sorry. Civil Union. I'm old school and haven't learned the Politically Correct lingo yet. Civil Union. I apologize.

Flint said:

“I’m curious about something. How would you answer if someone with little to no knowledge of evolutionary theory asked you the following questions? Where did the very first organism come from, and where did that earlier thing come from, and where did the thing before that come from, and the thing before that, and the thing before that, and the thing before that, and so on, and what proof do you have that what you say is true?”

The best answer I know of is, we simply do not know the exact sequence of processes by which the first organism occurred. I would suspect that there's a period of quite a few million years, way back then, when time-traveling biologists today would disagree as to whether what they were observing qualified as an "organism", with almost no biologists thinking so at the start of that period, and nearly all agreeing we have an organism at the end of it. In other words, a very very gradual process. Identifying the "first organism" is kind of like specifying the exact instant that constitutes "dawn". The demand for proof and truth simply doesn't fit the scientific model, where what you have is evidence in support, with differing amounts of both evidence and support. A scientific claim is a "best fit" explanation for the known observations, always subject to change with the next observation that comes along. The word "troll" is trotted out when your question is not reasonable. When you ask questions which ASSUME falsehoods (like "have you stopped beating your wife?"), it's difficult to answer them directly. Your question ASSUMES a "first organism", and it ASSUMES that the goal here is "truth", and it ASSUMES this truth can be "proved". And in the world of science, all of these assumptions are false.

Same arguments. Same technique of short responses to long, thoughtful replies. Same flooding of the airwaves with misconceptions and self-importance. Same lack of understanding.

I suspect that at the very least, there is a common background from which such misconceptions arise. 1) No real concept of the scientific method, the principles and assumptions behind science, the notions of testability, falsifiability, and the very concept of evidence. 2) An absolute conviction about certain aspects of a perceived reality, which constitutes a model antithetical to the scientific model. As Kurt Wise understood, if the scientifid model is true, certain religious models simply CANNOT be true, that these models are mutually exclusive. We can produce long thoughtful replies, but no matter how well phrased they are, they simply will not "fit" the model that generated the questions, and won't make sense. And I suspect the self-importance is a side-effect of being the victim of a very simple model not based on any knowledge, evidence, or understanding and therefore impervious to any of those things. You'd probably feel pretty self-impressed yourself, if questions generated by your model elicited meaningless silly long-winded WRONG responses by those who THINK they know so much.

phantomreader42 said:

Kris said: And are you aware that a lot of people think that the theory of evolution does pertain to the origin of life in a very important way?

Are you aware that a lot of people think a fat man in a red suit is going to climb down millions of chimneys delivering presents in a few days? Are you aware that a lot of people think the United States of America can afford two wars and massive tax cuts for the rich, but not unemployment benefits, a functioning healthcare system, or education? Are you aware that a lot of people think an old pedophile in a dress and a funny hat has the magical power to turn stale bread into human flesh? Are you aware that a lot of people think the moon landing, the Holocaust, the 9/11 attacks, the last Presidential election, and the entirety of modern science are all hoaxes perpetrated by some vast conspiracy? Are you aware that a lot of people think the sun revolves around the earth?

Are you aware that you’re a total fucking moron?

DS said: Maybe Kris is just trying to provide an example of someone who is so clueless....

To whom it may concern:

The word "someone" is an indefinite pronoun (third person).

I guess I was wrong to assume that everyone here has made it past the toddler stage when it comes to understanding the basics of the English language.

Kris said: To whom it may concern: The word "someone" is an indefinite pronoun (third person). I guess I was wrong to assume that everyone here has made it past the toddler stage when it comes to understanding the basics of the English language.

Personally, I feel that many scientific claims are proven, but many are not.

Stanton said:

Kris said: To whom it may concern: The word "someone" is an indefinite pronoun (third person). I guess I was wrong to assume that everyone here has made it past the toddler stage when it comes to understanding the basics of the English language.

So then your primary purposes here are to insult, belittle and admonish everyone here for not mindlessly agreeing with your platitudes about how Science sucks because scientists tend to be stupid and bicker, and that Science can't answer every single halfwit's inane question instantaneously.

Kris said:

Stanton said:

Kris said: To whom it may concern: The word "someone" is an indefinite pronoun (third person). I guess I was wrong to assume that everyone here has made it past the toddler stage when it comes to understanding the basics of the English language.

So then your primary purposes here are to insult, belittle and admonish everyone here for not mindlessly agreeing with your platitudes about how Science sucks because scientists tend to be stupid and bicker, and that Science can't answer every single halfwit's inane question instantaneously.

No.

Flint said:

Personally, I feel that many scientific claims are proven, but many are not.

The problem here, as has been noted by others, is a failure to understand the basics of the English language. Science deals with evidence, observation, inference. In science, there is no such thing as proof, in principle. It doesn't matter what you "feel", proof in the world of empirical reality is simply not applicable. The closest anyone can come is to have enormous amounts of consistent supporting evidence, backed by explanations of that evidence that are entirely consistent with explanations of related bodies of observation. But that is not "proof". It only represents a sufficiently high probability of being accurate that it can be presumed correct for further research, unless and until some conflict arises. But your offhand statement reflects a deeper problem. It PRESUMES that you can pick what you "feel" is "proved" and what you don't "feel" is "proved", so that you can turn around and accuse science of being arrogant for making conditional and tentative claims YOU FEEL aren't "proved". And this sort of conceptual error is what one would expect from someone who thinks that science "proves truths". All scientific claims are tentative and conditional. This is inherent in the very nature of the entire scientific enterprise. Scientists take this for granted every time they make any claim, just as religious believers take the Absolute Truth of their own claims for granted. But projecting True Belief errors onto science is just that - projecting. Unlike you, science has chosen to discard Absolute Certainty in favor of probable correctness. You can't have both.

Kris said:

Flint said:

“I’m curious about something. How would you answer if someone with little to no knowledge of evolutionary theory asked you the following questions? Where did the very first organism come from, and where did that earlier thing come from, and where did the thing before that come from, and the thing before that, and the thing before that, and the thing before that, and so on, and what proof do you have that what you say is true?”

The best answer I know of is, we simply do not know the exact sequence of processes by which the first organism occurred. I would suspect that there's a period of quite a few million years, way back then, when time-traveling biologists today would disagree as to whether what they were observing qualified as an "organism", with almost no biologists thinking so at the start of that period, and nearly all agreeing we have an organism at the end of it. In other words, a very very gradual process. Identifying the "first organism" is kind of like specifying the exact instant that constitutes "dawn". The demand for proof and truth simply doesn't fit the scientific model, where what you have is evidence in support, with differing amounts of both evidence and support. A scientific claim is a "best fit" explanation for the known observations, always subject to change with the next observation that comes along. The word "troll" is trotted out when your question is not reasonable. When you ask questions which ASSUME falsehoods (like "have you stopped beating your wife?"), it's difficult to answer them directly. Your question ASSUMES a "first organism", and it ASSUMES that the goal here is "truth", and it ASSUMES this truth can be "proved". And in the world of science, all of these assumptions are false.

The "scientific model" or "scientific claim" you described is the way it should be, in action and the way it's portrayed by scientists, but often isn't. Your last paragraph describes the way many people think, and one of the reasons they think that way is because scientists often portray assumptions, and unproven (or unprovable) scientific claims, as proven truths, or that science can or will find the truths. Personally, I feel that many scientific claims are proven, but many are not. Oh, and I don't necessarily agree that it's wrong to assume (or at least ponder) that there was a "first organism".

phantomreader42 said:

Kris said:

Stanton said:

Kris said: To whom it may concern: The word "someone" is an indefinite pronoun (third person). I guess I was wrong to assume that everyone here has made it past the toddler stage when it comes to understanding the basics of the English language.

So then your primary purposes here are to insult, belittle and admonish everyone here for not mindlessly agreeing with your platitudes about how Science sucks because scientists tend to be stupid and bicker, and that Science can't answer every single halfwit's inane question instantaneously.

No.

If your purpose here is anything other than being an annoying asshat, you're a dismal failure at it.

phantomreader42 said:

Kris said:

Flint said:

“I’m curious about something. How would you answer if someone with little to no knowledge of evolutionary theory asked you the following questions? Where did the very first organism come from, and where did that earlier thing come from, and where did the thing before that come from, and the thing before that, and the thing before that, and the thing before that, and so on, and what proof do you have that what you say is true?”

The best answer I know of is, we simply do not know the exact sequence of processes by which the first organism occurred. I would suspect that there's a period of quite a few million years, way back then, when time-traveling biologists today would disagree as to whether what they were observing qualified as an "organism", with almost no biologists thinking so at the start of that period, and nearly all agreeing we have an organism at the end of it. In other words, a very very gradual process. Identifying the "first organism" is kind of like specifying the exact instant that constitutes "dawn". The demand for proof and truth simply doesn't fit the scientific model, where what you have is evidence in support, with differing amounts of both evidence and support. A scientific claim is a "best fit" explanation for the known observations, always subject to change with the next observation that comes along. The word "troll" is trotted out when your question is not reasonable. When you ask questions which ASSUME falsehoods (like "have you stopped beating your wife?"), it's difficult to answer them directly. Your question ASSUMES a "first organism", and it ASSUMES that the goal here is "truth", and it ASSUMES this truth can be "proved". And in the world of science, all of these assumptions are false.

The "scientific model" or "scientific claim" you described is the way it should be, in action and the way it's portrayed by scientists, but often isn't. Your last paragraph describes the way many people think, and one of the reasons they think that way is because scientists often portray assumptions, and unproven (or unprovable) scientific claims, as proven truths, or that science can or will find the truths. Personally, I feel that many scientific claims are proven, but many are not. Oh, and I don't necessarily agree that it's wrong to assume (or at least ponder) that there was a "first organism".

So, oh great one, how should someone respond to an arrogant, willfully ignorant, irritating person who asks dishonest "questions" built on false premises? We know you get a terminal case of the vapors at the thought of pointing out that such a person is arrogant, willfully ignorant, dishonest, and working from false premises, so what should be done? Bake them cookies? Spend ten thousand years patiently explaining the most basic rudiments of science to them again and again, knowing full well each time that no force in the universe will induce them to learn anything or even acknowledge your efforts? Fall to your knees and beg them to listen, knowing full well they'd rather die? What is your magical solution?

Kris said:

phantomreader42 said:

Kris said:

Flint said:

“I’m curious about something. How would you answer if someone with little to no knowledge of evolutionary theory asked you the following questions? Where did the very first organism come from, and where did that earlier thing come from, and where did the thing before that come from, and the thing before that, and the thing before that, and the thing before that, and so on, and what proof do you have that what you say is true?”

The best answer I know of is, we simply do not know the exact sequence of processes by which the first organism occurred. I would suspect that there's a period of quite a few million years, way back then, when time-traveling biologists today would disagree as to whether what they were observing qualified as an "organism", with almost no biologists thinking so at the start of that period, and nearly all agreeing we have an organism at the end of it. In other words, a very very gradual process. Identifying the "first organism" is kind of like specifying the exact instant that constitutes "dawn". The demand for proof and truth simply doesn't fit the scientific model, where what you have is evidence in support, with differing amounts of both evidence and support. A scientific claim is a "best fit" explanation for the known observations, always subject to change with the next observation that comes along. The word "troll" is trotted out when your question is not reasonable. When you ask questions which ASSUME falsehoods (like "have you stopped beating your wife?"), it's difficult to answer them directly. Your question ASSUMES a "first organism", and it ASSUMES that the goal here is "truth", and it ASSUMES this truth can be "proved". And in the world of science, all of these assumptions are false.

The "scientific model" or "scientific claim" you described is the way it should be, in action and the way it's portrayed by scientists, but often isn't. Your last paragraph describes the way many people think, and one of the reasons they think that way is because scientists often portray assumptions, and unproven (or unprovable) scientific claims, as proven truths, or that science can or will find the truths. Personally, I feel that many scientific claims are proven, but many are not. Oh, and I don't necessarily agree that it's wrong to assume (or at least ponder) that there was a "first organism".

So, oh great one, how should someone respond to an arrogant, willfully ignorant, irritating person who asks dishonest "questions" built on false premises? We know you get a terminal case of the vapors at the thought of pointing out that such a person is arrogant, willfully ignorant, dishonest, and working from false premises, so what should be done? Bake them cookies? Spend ten thousand years patiently explaining the most basic rudiments of science to them again and again, knowing full well each time that no force in the universe will induce them to learn anything or even acknowledge your efforts? Fall to your knees and beg them to listen, knowing full well they'd rather die? What is your magical solution?

Assuming you're referring to someone asking questions about the origin of life, or the origin of the universe, how does asking the questions imply or confirm a "false premise", and what is "dishonest" about them?

Well, in that case I guess it hasn’t been proven that the Earth is round. It’s only probable that it’s round and it’s still up for debate. Hmm, maybe more studies should be done. Yeah, that’s the ticket. :)

phantomreader42 said: So, oh great one, how should someone respond to an arrogant, willfully ignorant, irritating person who asks dishonest "questions" built on false premises?

Assuming you’re referring to someone asking questions about the origin of life, or the origin of the universe, how does asking the questions imply or confirm a “false premise”, and what is “dishonest” about them?

And, how does asking those questions make someone an “arrogant, willfully ignorant, irritating person”?

Stanton said:

phantomreader42 said:

Kris said:

Stanton said:

Kris said: To whom it may concern: The word "someone" is an indefinite pronoun (third person). I guess I was wrong to assume that everyone here has made it past the toddler stage when it comes to understanding the basics of the English language.

So then your primary purposes here are to insult, belittle and admonish everyone here for not mindlessly agreeing with your platitudes about how Science sucks because scientists tend to be stupid and bicker, and that Science can't answer every single halfwit's inane question instantaneously.

No.

If your purpose here is anything other than being an annoying asshat, you're a dismal failure at it.

It's like I said earlier: Kris' social skills suck. I mean, why would he demand that we treat him civilly if he keeps on making rude, and snide comments that betray a profound ignorance of science?

Flint said:

Well, in that case I guess it hasn’t been proven that the Earth is round. It’s only probable that it’s round and it’s still up for debate. Hmm, maybe more studies should be done. Yeah, that’s the ticket. :)

As a matter of fact, you're headed in the right direction. As Isaac Asimov wrote, long ago people thought the world was flat. They were wrong. Later, they thought the world was round. They were ALSO wrong, but not AS wrong. There are degrees of wrong. And as measurements and measuring techniques improve, so does our understanding of the exact shape of our planet. We know it's an oblate spheroid, not a sphere. We know how much it differs from a sphere, but we also know that those differences change in complex ways short-term (tides) medium-term (tectonic movement), and long-term (the planet shrinks as it cools). But of course, we still have only measurements, never "proof". Measurements continue to improve, but they will never be "perfect". Perfection is a religious term. You STILL don't understand the language.

Alright Kris, perhaps we have been too hard on you. Allow me to help by trying to reword what you are trying to say.

As I understand it, your main point is that "someone" might be so stupid, ignorant and lazy that they might find some excuse to deny the theory of evolution, despite all of the evidence. "Someone" might refuse to believe in evolution unless you could prove to their satisfaction that science had all of the answers to life, the universe and everything, up to and including the big bang and abiogenesis. And this cannot be allowed because that "someone" might cause some kind of problem for science some day, despite the fact that they are lazy, ignorant and stupid. Do I have that right?

OK. So what should we do about it? Here, I'll make it a multiple choice question, just to avoid any further misunderstandings:

1) Ignore them and hope they die an early death due to their laziness, stupidity and ignorance.

2) Try to educate them that science does not have all of the answers and that all answers in science are provisional and that if they want certainty they should go somewhere else.

3) Try to educate them that there is ample evidence to demonstrate conclusively that evolution did in fact produce the diversity of life we see on earth, regardless of the validity of any other theories.

If you still refuse to answer and persist in your obnoxious and pointless behavior, I see no reason for anyone to continue responding to you.

Mike Elzinga said:

phantomreader42 said: So, oh great one, how should someone respond to an arrogant, willfully ignorant, irritating person who asks dishonest "questions" built on false premises?

It’s pretty obvious the jerk is simply going out of his way to piss people off any way he can. He’s doing this on every thread he pollutes; just looking for anybody he can beat up. He does this to women also. Not nice.

DS said: Alright Kris, perhaps we have been too hard on you. Allow me to help by trying to reword what you are trying to say. As I understand it, your main point is that "someone" might be so stupid, ignorant and lazy that they might find some excuse to deny the theory of evolution, despite all of the evidence. "Someone" might refuse to believe in evolution unless you could prove to their satisfaction that science had all of the answers to life, the universe and everything, up to and including the big bang and abiogenesis. And this cannot be allowed because that "someone" might cause some kind of problem for science some day, despite the fact that they are lazy, ignorant and stupid. Do I have that right? OK. So what should we do about it? Here, I'll make it a multiple choice question, just to avoid any further misunderstandings: 1) Ignore them and hope they die an early death due to their laziness, stupidity and ignorance. 2) Try to educate them that science does not have all of the answers and that all answers in science are provisional and that if they want certainty they should go somewhere else. 3) Try to educate them that there is ample evidence to demonstrate conclusively that evolution did in fact produce the diversity of life we see on earth, regardless of the validity of any other theories. If you still refuse to answer and persist in your obnoxious and pointless behavior, I see no reason for anyone to continue responding to you.

I think I did get it. Good bye for good.

Anyone with a clue knows what I meant.

The only obvious reason that you or anyone else is pissed off by what I’ve said is because you are filled with massive, uncontrolled, reality distorting hatred of creationism, AND anyone who doesn’t kiss your ass simply because you’re on the side of science in your “war”, AND anyone who doesn’t say anything but good things about science.