Off the Grid: Discover Mag has Special Evolution Issue this Summer

Posted 12 July 2011 by Dave Thomas

I noticed this while picking up a few items at the local market. It retails at $7.99, and has no commercials, other than a couple of pleas to subscribe to Discover Magazine. There is no mention of this issue on the web. None.* It's a special summer 2011 issue of Discover, titled "Evolution: Rethinking the Story of Life." The introduction states

Even the fearsome T. Rex, like the one on the cover of this month's issue, is fascinating largely because you know you'll never see one in the flesh. The implication of these stuffed critters and mounted bones seems to be that evolution itself is dead too. It seems like a tale of the distant past... Story over. The reality is that evolution is very much a work in progress - and its awesome power is still changing how we understand the living world. Cancer turns out to be an evolutionary disease, for example. ... The vital force of evolution is also evident in the growing problem of antibiotic resistance (page 80). ... Our ideas about evolution are evolving too, shaped by new research. Scientists have only begun to wrap their heads around epigenetics, the way DNA can be chemically modified in response to diet, stress, or other environmental factors in ways that permanently change how genes are activated. ... Evolution is very much alive and so is the science of evolution. Read on: A whole new look at the history (and future) of life awaits. - Kat McGowan, editor.

Creationism is not the focus of the issue, and creationists are mentioned only a few times in passing. One of these appears in an article on why Ernst Haeckel has been relegated to footnotes, while Charles Darwin is still in headlines:

Haeckel embellished some of his illustrations to emphasize similarities between the embryos of unrelated creatures. In doing so, he sowed enduring confusion: Creationists today still point to these drawings as evidence that evolution is a fraud.

(Haeckel's numerous gorgeous illustrations are also discussed.) Another rare mention: Bruno Maddox describes one of Darwin's early blunders, involving not recognizing glaciation's role in the formation of Glen Roy in the Scottish highlands. While not flattering to the young Darwin ("Not just a little bit wrong. A lot wrong. ... And he could, additionally, be a real pain in the you-know-what about it."), Maddox tosses this out about hiking to Glen Roy:

Certainly if you're coming from the States - from Petersburg, Kentucky, say, or Dayton, Tennessee, or any other of the thousand places where you would be safer lighting a Marlboro off a burning American flag than being caught with a copy of On the Origin of Species - you're going to find it quite a hike.

Asides from those brief mentions, the issue is Intelligent-Design and Discovery-Institute free, is refreshingly un-apologetic, and spends its pages packing in a lot of neat science. Included in the issue are articles on Stanley Miller's new experiments, viruses and their role in the startup of Life, living fossils, marsupials, dinosaur digs, decoding your megafaunal genome, why we are human, how cattle affected human genetics, hot spots for evolutionary observations, superbugs, and control of evolution itself. It's on sale till September 20th, 2011. It's well worth the 8 clams! * Until now, of course!

61 Comments

Mike Elzinga · 12 July 2011

I was looking at it just yesterday. I agree with Dave; it’s good issue.

cwzimmer · 13 July 2011

Speaking as a contributing editor to Discover, let me just say that the magazine publishes a few "newsstand only" special editions each year, often bringing together articles on a particular theme from regular issues. So this isn't some odd new thing the magazine is keeping off the web.

harold · 13 July 2011

cwzimmer said: Speaking as a contributing editor to Discover, let me just say that the magazine publishes a few "newsstand only" special editions each year, often bringing together articles on a particular theme from regular issues. So this isn't some odd new thing the magazine is keeping off the web.

I was just going to say that it looks great and I will keep an eye out for it. Now you made me worry ;). Even though that was, ironically, the opposite of your intent. What you're saying is that Discover does not feel any pressure to avoid offending creationists, and that the "newsstand only" status of this issue was not related to a perception that it will outrage creationists, who might react to an online presentation in annoying ways, is that about right? Thanks for all the great work.

Roger · 13 July 2011

That is one scary cover though. If the T. Rex doesn't get you there are still the giant hairy viruses and the mutants... I'll be hiding behind the sofa if Discover Magazine ever bring out a movie. ;o)

mrg · 13 July 2011

Roger said: I'll be hiding behind the sofa if Discover Magazine ever bring out a movie. ;o)

"I was here first! Go hide under the bed!"

Robin · 13 July 2011

Roger said: That is one scary cover though. If the T. Rex doesn't get you there are still the giant hairy viruses and the mutants... I'll be hiding behind the sofa if Discover Magazine ever bring out a movie. ;o)

This one still freaks me out: http://files.truedinos.webnode.com/200000330-177cb1876a/kronosaurus.jpg

John · 13 July 2011

cwzimmer said: Speaking as a contributing editor to Discover, let me just say that the magazine publishes a few "newsstand only" special editions each year, often bringing together articles on a particular theme from regular issues. So this isn't some odd new thing the magazine is keeping off the web.

Thanks Carl. This is unlike Scientific American, which has commissioned new articles for its own special issues (Those that have articles pertaining to the same or similar theme(s).).

Mike Elzinga · 13 July 2011

harold said: What you're saying is that Discover does not feel any pressure to avoid offending creationists, and that the "newsstand only" status of this issue was not related to a perception that it will outrage creationists, who might react to an online presentation in annoying ways, is that about right? Thanks for all the great work.

I have generally had similar impressions of Discover; some very interesting articles, yet too often frustratingly shallow. Then there is that occasional titillation with a little pseudo-science rather than an outright debunking of it. I think I understand some of the difficulties of writing for lay audiences while also trying to stay in business. Having attempted at one time to write for lay audiences, I discovered just how difficult it is. Carl writes like I wish I could. I would like to see a magazine that had a format that was two-tiered in its presentations. It would have a level that outlined the essence of a scientific topic aimed at those who want to know but don’t have the time or sufficient background to dig into a more challenging presentation. But it would also present the same article – or at least supplement it – with material that pulled people along in their development.

bhooker.jr · 13 July 2011

"This one still freaks me out:"

"You're going to need a bigger boat..."

terenzioiltroll · 14 July 2011

Mike Elzinga said: I would like to see a magazine that had a format that was two-tiered in its presentations.

If it is an on-line magazine, chances are it is already three-tirered. (ok, nerd humor...)

Midnight Rambler · 15 July 2011

Mike Elzinga said: I have generally had similar impressions of Discover; some very interesting articles, yet too often frustratingly shallow. Then there is that occasional titillation with a little pseudo-science rather than an outright debunking of it.

My impression is that after Disney took it over (with a promise of no change in content), there was a switch in emphasis from reporting on things that had been (newly) discovered or revealed, to a lot more speculative articles on hypotheses or works in progress that might pan out, or might turn out to be completely ridiculous. It seems like they're going overboard in search of "zing".

Frank J · 15 July 2011

Mike Elzinga said:
harold said: What you're saying is that Discover does not feel any pressure to avoid offending creationists, and that the "newsstand only" status of this issue was not related to a perception that it will outrage creationists, who might react to an online presentation in annoying ways, is that about right? Thanks for all the great work.
I have generally had similar impressions of Discover; some very interesting articles, yet too often frustratingly shallow. Then there is that occasional titillation with a little pseudo-science rather than an outright debunking of it. I think I understand some of the difficulties of writing for lay audiences while also trying to stay in business. Having attempted at one time to write for lay audiences, I discovered just how difficult it is. Carl writes like I wish I could. I would like to see a magazine that had a format that was two-tiered in its presentations. It would have a level that outlined the essence of a scientific topic aimed at those who want to know but don’t have the time or sufficient background to dig into a more challenging presentation. But it would also present the same article – or at least supplement it – with material that pulled people along in their development.

My sentiments exactly. Though I should add that I find some of those titles on the cover (e.g. "from ooze to us") obnoxious, and likely to feed, rather than correct, common misconceptions. I will probably buy the issue, though.

harold · 15 July 2011

Frank J. -

What's so obnoxious about "from ooze to us"?

It's a humorous way of expressing the idea the life shares common descent, and that earliest life was unicellular and probably "simple", in the limited sense that individual multicellular organisms are large clones of highly differentiated cell types, rather than populations of highly similar individual cells. (With the caveat that unicellular organisms are plenty complicated, from a human perspective.)

As we both know, the earth is not 6000 years old and the theory of evolution is the best scientific explanation for the diversity and relatedness of life on earth.

I'm personally in favor of being nice to people unless otherwise indicated, and I personally have no negative emotional reaction to "religion" per se.

Those are a subjective ethical preference and subjective emotional reaction of mine, respectively.

But I really don't believe in the "our side should walk on eggshells" model of science communication.

There are two reasons why it won't work -

1) You can never convince everyone to walk on eggshells.

The earth still revolves around the sun and life still evolves, even if someone who accepts reality is "rude".

A fair number of "internet atheists" were raised by upper class atheist parents, and perceive religion as a trait of lower income or less educated people.

Another, probably larger number, were mistreated in a harsh religious environment, often for years, and are understandably embittered.

There's just never going to be a world in which someone can declare arbitrary beliefs, and then be fully protected from having those beliefs challenged, or even insulted.

2) More importantly, most of the people who tell you they are "offended" or whine about "ad hominems" are insincere anyway. They will always claim to be offended by any "rival" to their authoritarian belief system.

Someone who says "I was going to accept scientific reality, but my feelings were hurt by someone or something somehow related to science, so now I'm going to be a creationist" isn't just sincere.

What those people are doing is signalling to you that they, personally, are fully dug in and can never be convinced, while trying to pretend to have an "open mind". I'm not sure why they do this; to fool third party observers I guess.

I've been ridiculed, rejected, insulted, threatened, etc, in my life, and I don't mean just being called a "creotard" or "fundy" on the internet. It never occurred to me to think that reality changed because of this. A sincere person wouldn't suggest that.

Scientific reality can never bolster their frail egos or justify their most hateful biases perfectly. There will always be a con man to sell things that promise to do that.

I do agree that there is a vast number of adult Americans who are out of touch with basic reality on a variety of levels (not only creationists or right wing extremists by any means, although numerically those groups dwarf other equally deluded groups).

That can't go on forever. Either they change their minds, or younger people adopt a more reality-based lifestyle (*and I'm optimistic because older generations I knew, although not as formally educated and traditionally religious, were much more reality-based than, say, a typical member of the current US Congress), or this society is not going to last.

However, although I am strongly in favor or being nice to people, I will continue to note that walking on eggshells and trying not to "offend" those who are already brainwashed to the point that abandoning their biases would produce severe psychological disruption is hopeless.

harold · 15 July 2011

Clarification to anyone who is not familiar with my comments -

I said "I don’t mean just being called a “creotard” or “fundy” on the internet."

I should have said, "I don't mean just the equivalent of trivial stuff like being called mild names on the internet".

Since I am not a fundamentalist or creationist, of course, I have never been called those specific names.

Mike Elzinga · 15 July 2011

harold said: However, although I am strongly in favor or being nice to people, I will continue to note that walking on eggshells and trying not to "offend" those who are already brainwashed to the point that abandoning their biases would produce severe psychological disruption is hopeless.

Creationists, for at least the 40+ years I have been watching them, want to tie the hands and feet of anyone who has the expertise to totally demolish creationist pretensions. Terms like science nerds, or geeks, or whatever epithets society wants to demean disciplined learning with, have been around for a long time; and they are unfair. Discipline and precision in sports or in the playing of a musical instrument, or in a Navy SEAL team operation are all admired and lauded. But there is as much discipline and precision required in the learning and execution of scientific concepts as there is in any other activity that requires years of training and correction of tiny details of practice. You seldom hear mocking of people practicing a musical instrument for hours a day, year after year. There are hundreds of fine details of execution required to bring out the tone and meaning in a piece of music without making it muddy and sloppy. It simply takes discipline and years of practice. The same can be said of all sports, or of any skill that people can and do master. Yet in our society, the same dedication, discipline, and attention to detail in science is frequently derided and viewed with antipathy. Creationist sectarians spend a great deal of their waking hours seething and stewing over how to mock and demean those who have dedicated their lives to science. If they tried to pull this crap on a professional soccer or hockey player, they would be pounded into a bloody pulp. So any intellectual pounding creationists get from someone in science is well-deserved. Creationist bullies keep asking for it, and eventually someone is going to give it to them.

Just Bob · 15 July 2011

I agree with Frank J, you fundy creotard! ;-)

(I just thought that you ought to be able to claim that you had been called that, at least once.)

But more to the point, the "ooze to us" is reminiscent of a despicable creationist screed by one Harold Hill: From Goo to You by Way of the Zoo. (Wasn't Professor Harold Hill the con man who brought the Boys' Band to River City?) When I saw the "Ooze to Us" title, I thought "Errgh--couldn't they have come up with something that doesn't seem to be borrowing a meme from the fundy creotards?"

No biggie, it just struck me the wrong way, as I guess it did Frank J.

mrg · 15 July 2011

Mike Elzinga said: So any intellectual pounding creationists get from someone in science is well-deserved. Creationist bullies keep asking for it, and eventually someone is going to give it to them.

If you're making an argument to persuade the undecided, you have to keep the high road. It's not a question of politeness; it's just that a sensible reader will think: "This person is trying to impress me by bad-mouthing the other guys ... because he can't offer a cogent argument." Besides, listening to people venting is tiresome. It doesn't sound clever, it just sounds inarticulate and self-indulgent. If you want to rally the faithful, then invective works -- but I ask anyone here if I could convince them of anything in a difference of opinion by simply acting hot under the collar. If anyone said YES, I would ask: WHY? Attack their ideas, yes, show they are misinformation, show they are preposterous, show they have ulterior motives. But if you do that, calling names is just belaboring the reader; if you don't do that, calling names is just shooting yourself in the foot.

harold · 15 July 2011

Just Bob said: I agree with Frank J, you fundy creotard! ;-) (I just thought that you ought to be able to claim that you had been called that, at least once.) But more to the point, the "ooze to us" is reminiscent of a despicable creationist screed by one Harold Hill: From Goo to You by Way of the Zoo. (Wasn't Professor Harold Hill the con man who brought the Boys' Band to River City?) When I saw the "Ooze to Us" title, I thought "Errgh--couldn't they have come up with something that doesn't seem to be borrowing a meme from the fundy creotards?" No biggie, it just struck me the wrong way, as I guess it did Frank J.

I actually think that the phrase "From Goo to You by Way of the Zoo" was one of the only good things a creationist has ever come up with ;). I confirmed that you are correct about the fictional character Harold Hill. It is most ironic that there is or was an actual creationist with that name (for full disclosure, Harold is my real first name but my last name isn't "Hill"). He seems to have been one of those "engineer" creationists. The reviews look a little one-sided http://www.amazon.com/Goo-You-Way-Zoo/dp/0800751744

harold · 15 July 2011

Mike Elzinga -

It's interesting to note the multiple strategies which happen at once.

The "creation science" generation, which I am familiar with only from the historical record but whom others here actually dealt with, tried to take the tack that they were the "real scientists" and that the entire field of biology was somehow isolated and trivially wrong. That approach still persists to a limited degree on the "traditional" sites, there's that "PhD astrophysicist" at one of the sites.

Then there was the switch to trying to get a few actual biologists (Behe, Wells), and to the emphasis on "information" and "probability". Possibly just a reflection of trends - physics and engineering were the "in" sciences during the space age, and now computer science and molecular biology/genetics are more "in".

But at the same time, I notice an increasing use of the outright denial and scorning of science and empirical reality altogether. That's always been part of the picture, but I guess that it fits especially well with the post-modern, "we make our own reality" era.

Mike Elzinga · 15 July 2011

mrg said:
Mike Elzinga said: So any intellectual pounding creationists get from someone in science is well-deserved. Creationist bullies keep asking for it, and eventually someone is going to give it to them.
If you're making an argument to persuade the undecided, you have to keep the high road. It's not a question of politeness; it's just that a sensible reader will think: "This person is trying to impress me by bad-mouthing the other guys ... because he can't offer a cogent argument." Besides, listening to people venting is tiresome. It doesn't sound clever, it just sounds inarticulate and self-indulgent. If you want to rally the faithful, then invective works -- but I ask anyone here if I could convince them of anything in a difference of opinion by simply acting hot under the collar. If anyone said YES, I would ask: WHY? Attack their ideas, yes, show they are misinformation, show they are preposterous, show they have ulterior motives. But if you do that, calling names is just belaboring the reader; if you don't do that, calling names is just shooting yourself in the foot.

What I mean by an intellectual pounding is not verbal or physical abuse. But, metaphorically, it should leave no doubt about what science really says and what scientific concepts really mean. It should leave no doubt about who is playing games. But, from my experiences with the audiences I have had in the past, the effect is just as devastating. I always made sure my talks included not only the real science, but I also included the misconceptions, misrepresentations, and tactics the creationists were using over and over despite repeated corrections by other scientists who were aware of what they were doing. Contrasting the science with the pseudo-science is one thing; and audience members would often raise the possibility that creationists were sincere but misguided (I once thought that myself). But when I included a list of creationist tactics in my talks, audiences were more likely to understand the political game creationists were playing, and then they were far less sympathetic. I was fortunate enough to not get trapped into a public debate with a creationist. I might have done it early on, when I thought they were just naive or misinformed; but it didn’t take me too long after seeing a debate to figure out the tactics they were using. A few crosschecks and a little reading of their writings pretty quickly cured me of any temptation to give them any leverage or slack; or free ride. I was probably the only physicist who was addressing these issues locally during the 1970s and early 1980s. Back then, it was pretty much a local phenomenon as far as the science community understood; they had not become aware of the national scope of the attack. And, even then, most of my colleagues thought it was the biologist’s war; and they generally had an aloof distain about how biologists were handling the physics attacks. I thought it was unfair for the biologists to have to take on physics questions for which they were unprepared; and Morris, Gish, Walter T. Brown, etc. knew when to intimidate biologists and biology teachers with physics. As to the snarky trolls that show up here on PT, I’m willing to consider what they have to say; but when it becomes obvious that they are just playing games, then they can be treated like the childish trolls they are.

Mike Elzinga · 15 July 2011

harold said: Mike Elzinga - It's interesting to note the multiple strategies which happen at once. The "creation science" generation, which I am familiar with only from the historical record but whom others here actually dealt with, tried to take the tack that they were the "real scientists" and that the entire field of biology was somehow isolated and trivially wrong. That approach still persists to a limited degree on the "traditional" sites, there's that "PhD astrophysicist" at one of the sites. Then there was the switch to trying to get a few actual biologists (Behe, Wells), and to the emphasis on "information" and "probability". Possibly just a reflection of trends - physics and engineering were the "in" sciences during the space age, and now computer science and molecular biology/genetics are more "in". But at the same time, I notice an increasing use of the outright denial and scorning of science and empirical reality altogether. That's always been part of the picture, but I guess that it fits especially well with the post-modern, "we make our own reality" era.

Duane Gish was one of the early creationists who started causing mischief in Kalamazoo, Michigan. In the 1960s – before he joined Henry Morris to form the Creation “Research” Institute – Gish worked at what was then the Upjohn Company, which was headquartered in, and had its major production and research facilities in, Kalamazoo and Portage. As I recall, he did some research on the tobacco mosaic virus; but I may not be remembering that correctly. Gish has a PhD in biochemistry from UC Berkeley. And I do recall that he used his “credentials” to terrorize biology teachers in the local schools. He was a real bastard. A good friend of mine was one of his targets. That was pretty early on, before anybody knew the nature of what was just getting started. Morris and Gish turned out to be far more scientifically stupid yet far more politically crafty than many would have guessed back then.

Frank J · 16 July 2011

@ harold:

To clarify (as I always have to do with everyone), I do not advocate "walking on eggshells." I do not object to using words like "ooze," but I object to it being used at nearly every opportunity. I realize they have to sell magazines to nonscientists and need something catchy, but I'd really appreciate something original. Actually, if you change "ooze" to "dust" it becomes a typical creationist headline, as ~4 billion years of ancestors are omitted, and most people interpret "us" as "H. sapiens" and not "any living thing."

BTW, my entry in NCSE's bumper sticker contest focused on the 4 billion years of life (not Earth), and didn't mention "evolution." Not because of "walking on eggshells," but because that word is already everywhere. Given that people read bumper stickers for ~1 second, I'm hoping for an occasional "is that how old it is?" instead of the usual "evolution, whatever" reaction from the great majority.

Frank J · 16 July 2011

Gish has a PhD in biochemistry from UC Berkeley. And I do recall that he used his “credentials” to terrorize biology teachers in the local schools. He was a real bastard. A good friend of mine was one of his targets.
— Mike Elzinga

As you probably know, Gish (YEC) and Hugh Ross (OEC) had at least one famous debate. Not sure if the incidents you mention were before or after that, but if after, the obvious response is "Come back when you and Ross can agree on what the evidence supports in terms of when the Earth and all its 'kinds' originated." Granted, it would not work if only a few lone teachers did it. But it's interesting that the "don't ask, don't tell what happened when, just promote unreasonable doubt of evolution" strategy just happened to come along before a critical mass of teachers realized how hopelessly deadlocked in disagreement these radical activists were. Not to mention how easily falsified their mutually contradictory alternate "theories" were.

Mike Elzinga · 16 July 2011

Frank J said: As you probably know, Gish (YEC) and Hugh Ross (OEC) had at least one famous debate. Not sure if the incidents you mention were before or after that, but if after, the obvious response is "Come back when you and Ross can agree on what the evidence supports in terms of when the Earth and all its 'kinds' originated." Granted, it would not work if only a few lone teachers did it. But it's interesting that the "don't ask, don't tell what happened when, just promote unreasonable doubt of evolution" strategy just happened to come along before a critical mass of teachers realized how hopelessly deadlocked in disagreement these radical activists were. Not to mention how easily falsified their mutually contradictory alternate "theories" were.

From what I could learn from Gish’s website, that debate took place August 12, 1992. Back in the 1960s, I am fairly sure I had no awareness of there being a national level creationist attack on science; what I knew at that time would have suggested to me that this was taking place in the South in a few places. I didn’t find out about Gish’s harassment from my friend until she told me about it much later. My gradual awareness of local creationist activities was beginning in about the mid 1970s; and even then, it didn’t register as anything significant until viewed in hindsight. But well before McLean v. Arkansas in 1982, I was fully aware because Science was carrying regular articles about it, and I was beginning to make connections to local phenomena and questions I was getting from students and colleagues. My talks to lay audiences began in the early to mid 1980s in Rochester, New York. At that time there was little coordination among scientists nationally (I think NCSE was started in 1981, but I didn’t know about it then); and we didn’t know that local “scientific” creationist events and pressure were a well-coordinated national phenomenon until local news papers were giving creationists full-page spreads about creation “science.” I am fully in agreement with your advice to make sure that YEC and OEC inconsistencies are spotlighted. Back when I was doing my talks, that issue didn’t come up. People had asked me about the science, and it took me a few tries and some good advice from others to learn how to present the material properly. We were pretty seriously outgunned by creationists and didn’t know it back then. I think we are far better off now because they now have a mountain of crap they have to answer for and can't take back.

Karen S. · 17 July 2011

Though I should add that I find some of those titles on the cover (e.g. “from ooze to us”) obnoxious, and likely to feed, rather than correct, common misconceptions.

"From ooze to us" reminds me of the creationist book called "From Goo to You by way of the Zoo" by Harold Hill. Anyone else every heard of it? Creos love these catchy little phrases. You know, like "molecules to man."

robert van bakel · 17 July 2011

Just started watching, for the umpteenth time Jakob Bronowski's 1973 'The Ascent of Man'. It's like going into a clean alpine environment after a quick trip to the sewer at UD. I didn't realise before, but large sections of his narration are completely unscripted 'off the cuff' monologues.

cwjolley · 22 July 2011

robert van bakel said: Just started watching, for the umpteenth time Jakob Bronowski's 1973 'The Ascent of Man'. It's like going into a clean alpine environment after a quick trip to the sewer at UD. I didn't realise before, but large sections of his narration are completely unscripted 'off the cuff' monologues.

BTW: Accent of Man is available from Netflix now. Closest thing to free beer a science lover will ever get.

Ray Martinez · 22 July 2011

Mike Elzinga said: Duane Gish was one of the early creationists who started causing mischief in Kalamazoo, Michigan. In the 1960s – before he joined Henry Morris to form the Creation “Research” Institute – Gish worked at what was then the Upjohn Company, which was headquartered in, and had its major production and research facilities in, Kalamazoo and Portage. As I recall, he did some research on the tobacco mosaic virus; but I may not be remembering that correctly. Gish has a PhD in biochemistry from UC Berkeley. And I do recall that he used his “credentials” to terrorize biology teachers in the local schools. He was a real bastard. A good friend of mine was one of his targets.

Exactly what Darwinists do: use their "credentials" to terrorize anyone who disagrees with them. Are you saying they learned the tactic from Gish?

Mike Elzinga · 22 July 2011

Ray Martinez said: Exactly what Darwinists do: use their "credentials" to terrorize anyone who disagrees with them. Are you saying they learned the tactic from Gish?

One of the prime characteristics of you ID/creationists is your habit of projecting. And projecting is always accompanied by your whining persecution complex when you are called out on your bullshit. Many of Morris’s and Gish’s favorite piles, and piles, and piles of pure bullshit are still being used today even as they were used back then. Keeping bullshit out of the classroom is a professional responsibility of any good instructor. If that terrorizes you, then it is a victory for justice.

John · 22 July 2011

Ray Martinez the devious mendacious intellectual pornographer barked: Exactly what Darwinists do: use their "credentials" to terrorize anyone who disagrees with them. Are you saying they learned the tactic from Gish?

Au contraire, Ray baby. Stop by any creo-infested website, like, for example, my "buddy" Bill Dembski's creation, Uncommon Dissent, and the posters there are praising the academic credentials of their "prophets" whether it is the ever larcenous Bill Dembski or Mikey "Don't know what science is (Ask Eric Rothschild)" Behe. Real scientists, like vertebrate paleobiologist Don Prothero, don't announce their credentials as though they are shingles to their offices, as doctors and dentists might. In fact, I have heard Don say that he wishes to be known as Don Prothero in private life; only when he is working as a scientist should be addressed as "Dr. Prothero". Not only Duane Gish, but even Henry Morris loved to show off his credentials for anyone who is interested. Ditto too for the larcenous Bill Dembski. Mike Elzinga is absolutely right, my pathetic decomposed arse licker (Decomposed in the sense that you still lick Morris's arse.). Stop projecting and stop being mendacious.

Dave Luckett · 22 July 2011

It's not only waving the academic credentials in people's faces. It's playing on the idea abroad among the general public that any doctorate in what sounds like a sciency subject makes the holder an expert in evolutionary biology. Dembski's credentials are in statistics and, separately, in evangelical apologetics. His knowledge of biology is zip.

Still worse, of course, is the habit of the more way-out creationists of claiming doctoral and senior research degrees that are entirely fraudulent. It is truly astonishing to see people like Don Patton or Carl Baugh introduced on creationist videos as "Doctor". I suppose it's almost traditional, like the leader of the band in a burly-cue grindhouse used to be addressed as "Perfessor". But still it's odd that they do it, because most of the mouthbreathers who actually swallow their nonsense have no respect whatsoever for genuine academic education - rather the contrary: they are contemptuous of it.

John · 22 July 2011

Dave Luckett said: It's not only waving the academic credentials in people's faces. It's playing on the idea abroad among the general public that any doctorate in what sounds like a sciency subject makes the holder an expert in evolutionary biology. Dembski's credentials are in statistics and, separately, in evangelical apologetics. His knowledge of biology is zip.

Wesley Elsberry and Jeffrey Shallit will tell you Dave that Dembski's understanding of probability theory and statistics is nil. Immediately after the Intelligent Design debate held at the American Museum of Natural History back in the Spring of 2002, I cornered Dembski and asked him twice how he would calculate confidence limits with his explanatory filter. He just looked at me as though I was a Martian visiting Earth, and ignored my question.

SWT · 23 July 2011

John said:
Dave Luckett said: It's not only waving the academic credentials in people's faces. It's playing on the idea abroad among the general public that any doctorate in what sounds like a sciency subject makes the holder an expert in evolutionary biology. Dembski's credentials are in statistics and, separately, in evangelical apologetics. His knowledge of biology is zip.
Wesley Elsberry and Jeffrey Shallit will tell you Dave that Dembski's understanding of probability theory and statistics is nil. Immediately after the Intelligent Design debate held at the American Museum of Natural History back in the Spring of 2002, I cornered Dembski and asked him twice how he would calculate confidence limits with his explanatory filter. He just looked at me as though I was a Martian visiting Earth, and ignored my question.

Who needs confidence limits? Dembski's confidence is unlimited.

circleh · 23 July 2011

Ray Martinez said: Exactly what Darwinists do: use their "credentials" to terrorize anyone who disagrees with them. Are you saying they learned the tactic from Gish?

Will you shut up about "Darwinists"? That's as stupid as calling modern astronomers "Copernicans", you asshole. That, and the fact that you just lied about how we operate.

apokryltaros · 23 July 2011

circleh said:
Ray Martinez said: Exactly what Darwinists do: use their "credentials" to terrorize anyone who disagrees with them. Are you saying they learned the tactic from Gish?
Will you shut up about "Darwinists"? That's as stupid as calling modern astronomers "Copernicans", you asshole. That, and the fact that you just lied about how we operate.

If Ray Martinez can not lie, then he can not speak at all.

Rolf · 23 July 2011

Ray Martinez has disqualified himself from any intelligent discourse and to have him permanently relegated to the BW is the least we could to to spare the world from such vermin. For lurkers here who wisely ignore the madhouse of the t.o newsgroup, here's an enlightening sample, have barf bag ready:

I would not debate [deleted] if he extended an offer. Like all Evolutionists he is intellectually inferior. His degree is utterly worthless (like any degree held by any Evolutionist). It is worthless because it is signed by persons who think apes morphed into men over the course of millions of years, and that the wonders of nature were produced without Divine intelligence and power. Currently an entire generation of anti-evolution Theists exist who have chosen not be educated by the Darwinian establishment. We have no desire to bow our knee to Darwin and his moronic nonsense. We have zero respect for any and all Evolutionists. Instead, we have chosen to be educated the way our ancient Christian forefathers were educated: by listening to one, or a handful, of genius Theologians.

Outstanding.

John · 23 July 2011

SWT said: Who needs confidence limits? Dembski's confidence is unlimited.

Right, SWT, it most certainly is! And yes, for anyone who is wondering, Dembski thought I was an idiot asking that question (When I received an unsolicited e-mail from him back in early December 2007, I asked him again that very question. And of course he ignored me.). But speaking of his confidence, his some typical Dumbski chutzpah with respect to Elsberry and Shallit: http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/jeffrey-shallit/ I find this opening sentence in the final paragraph especially precious: "The irony is that Shallit and Elsberry are making a name for themselves by parasitizing my work. Shallit has published one lengthy peer-reviewed article criticizing my work and has another under submission (coauthored with Wesley Elsberry) titled “Information Theory, Evolutionary Computation, and Dembski’s ‘Complex Specified Information’.” Anyway, to make a long story short, I think the real reason why Dembski has refused to answer my question three times is because he knows that he can't calculate confidence limits to his Explanatory Filter; since that is the most absurd Panglossian "construct" I have encountered with respect to probability and statistics (And since Bill has graduate degrees in mathematics and statistics, he ought to know better.). Instead, Bill indulges in larcenous activity like "borrowing" the XVIVO-produced cell animation video from Harvard University. (P. S. TO the Pharyngulites who still think that their idol owes me expensive Leica rangefinder camera equipment, the correct answer is "NO". Instead, it's my dear "buddy" Bill after he tried to have Amazon.com exercise a crude form of censorship - and mounted an online hate campaign against moi - and he almost got away with that act of censorship until I e-mailed him an ultimatum to have Amazon restore the "offending" review I wrote of his then latest example of mendacious intellectual pornography by the following day or else suffer the consequences.)

John · 23 July 2011

Ray Martinez the delusional mendacious Xian prophet should have decreed: I would not debate [deleted] if he extended an offer. Like all Creationists he is intellectually inferior. His degree is utterly worthless (like any degree held by any Creationist). It is worthless because it is signed by those blinded by their utter devotion to Scripture and insist that the wonders of nature were produced via constant intervention of Divine intelligence and power. We have zero respect for any and all Creationists, who are so mentally challenged that they should be dubbed "Cretinists". Instead, we have chosen to be educated in rational discourse and understanding, adhering to principles first expressed in the Scottish and French Enlightenments. Unlike the Cretinists, we have no desire to return to the long dark abyss of superstition and ignorance that existed in Europe prior to the advent of the Scientific Revolution.

There Rolf, that's better. I fixed it.

mrg · 23 July 2011

Who's this "Ray" person people keep talking about? Is this supposed to be a joke of some sort? Sort of like "Byers"? People make up an imaginary gremlin and pretend he's real?

I ask: what's the point?

mrg · 23 July 2011

Dave Luckett said: But still it's odd that they do it, because most of the mouthbreathers who actually swallow their nonsense have no respect whatsoever for genuine academic education - rather the contrary: they are contemptuous of it.

I find it doubly odd; creationists ceaselessly detail how contemptuous they are of the sciences, but they still crave the halo of scientific authority. I do not think this is entirely a cynical ploy, either; they are honestly envious of the sciences even while having nothing good in specific to say about them, determined to put on a facade of scientific authority: "Professor Pettifogger And His Traveling Medicine Show." Alas, that sums up how convincing they are, even when they actually have qualifications -- how in Bob's Name did Jason Lyle get a degree from University of Colorado Boulder?!

apokryltaros · 23 July 2011

mrg said:
Dave Luckett said: But still it's odd that they do it, because most of the mouthbreathers who actually swallow their nonsense have no respect whatsoever for genuine academic education - rather the contrary: they are contemptuous of it.
I find it doubly odd; creationists ceaselessly detail how contemptuous they are of the sciences, but they still crave the halo of scientific authority. I do not think this is entirely a cynical ploy, either; they are honestly envious of the sciences even while having nothing good in specific to say about them, determined to put on a facade of scientific authority: "Professor Pettifogger And His Traveling Medicine Show." Alas, that sums up how convincing they are, even when they actually have qualifications -- how in Bob's Name did Jason Lyle get a degree from University of Colorado Boulder?!

How is a textbook example of "sour grapes" supposed to be odd? Creationists are taught to hate, scorn and despise science and scientists as being evil and wrong, yet, are jealous of the authority is capable of bestowing, and do a very poor job hiding this fact.

mrg · 23 July 2011

apokryltaros said: How is a textbook example of "sour grapes" supposed to be odd?

I find it hard to understand how grown people can maintain two blatantly contradictory notions simultaneously. That they do so I accept. How they do so is beyond my ability to comprehend.

Dave Luckett · 23 July 2011

apokryltaros said: How is a textbook example of "sour grapes" supposed to be odd? Creationists are taught to hate, scorn and despise science and scientists as being evil and wrong, yet, are jealous of the authority is capable of bestowing, and do a very poor job hiding this fact.

It's not just science. It's all education, all learning. And it's not just that they envy the authority of learning, although I don't doubt that's part of it. Not that they grant it any authority, anyway. They dismiss anyone with an education, anyone who tends to argue from evidence rather than from inner conviction. I have seen good qualified evidence-driven logical argument flung away with not merely with contempt, and not with any attempt at rebuttal, even on transparently spurious grounds, but with an assertion that the good sense of plain people trumps any book learning. That evidence not only doesn't matter, it is to be dismissed simply because it's what people with an education use to reach decisions. Real people, genuine people don't need evidence to know what's right. They don't need reasons to make decisions. They know. They just know. They don't use their minds, they use their guts, and that's the way they want it and believe it should be. How do you operate in the face of a mindset like that? It beats me. But I know that it would be folly to ignore it.

mrg · 23 July 2011

Dave Luckett said: They don't use their minds, they use their guts, and that's the way they want it and believe it should be.

And given its positioning, it's not surprising that the gut does all its talking out the arse. They don't really hate science. They hate all evidence-based thinking as "materialist" and science just happens to be the particular example that torks them off. However, the same mindset applies to any other example that torks them off.

Mike Elzinga · 23 July 2011

mrg said: Alas, that sums up how convincing they are, even when they actually have qualifications -- how in Bob's Name did Jason Lyle get a degree from University of Colorado Boulder?!

Georgia Purdom in the first part of her video over at AiG gives an example in her case. One can’t help thinking most of her fear of others at Ohio State is manufactured in her own head. If Jason Lisle is anything like some of the fundamentalists I have known, he got through his degree by keeping his head down, using his practiced ability at rote memorization, and by getting his PhD for doing routine housekeeping assignments on a project that was part of a larger team effort. It isn’t necessarily the fault of many departments in the sciences that they are understaffed, overloaded with work, and responsible for many huge sections of general science courses for everybody who is required to take a science course of some sort. There are many more people in college and universities these days; and a very large percentage of them are totally unprepared for the courses they are taking. In addition, there are financial pressures to keep enrollment up; and that almost always contributes to the administrative pressures to inflate grades, give degrees, and “satisfy customers” rather than install remedial, non-college credit courses. I suspect most of us have encountered pushy fundamentalist students either when we were students ourselves or as faculty members. The ones I have encountered spent most of their time attempting to segue discussions into chances to “witness” and preach. They were not thinking very much about the concepts they were supposed to be learning. Most of their mental activity was related to what was going on in their campus church organizations. Since the ID/creationist movement became well-funded and well-organized, creationists are now giving tutorials and advice to fundamentalist students on how to game the system and remain in stealth mode. But still the vast majority of these students get by with rote memorization and by taking on only the most menial tasks that can still fulfill degree requirements. There is absolutely no question that Jason Lisle and Georgia Purdom, among the most of the other ID/creationists, are totally incapable of carrying out a real research project on their own. They wouldn’t even begin to know how to ask a research question in a way that it can be pursued and answered. They are stuck in the game they are currently playing, knowing deep down in their tortured psyches that they will never really cut it as real scientists. On the other hand, there are fundamentalists who get through applied science programs such as engineering, and they can become pretty good at a relatively narrow engineering field. But most of these do not appreciate the deeper implications of the scientific concepts that form the foundation of their engineering field. In fact, it has most frequently been the engineers in the creationist movements who have portrayed themselves as scientists with expertise in areas they have never studied. Henry Morris and Walter T. Brown come to mind as a couple of the early purveyors of the misconceptions about thermodynamics. Brown has a PhD in mechanical engineering from MIT, and Morris had a PhD in hydraulic engineering. They passed themselves off as experts in thermodynamics in those early days. Unfortunately, knowing how to work engineering problems using steam tables doesn’t give one a deep understanding of thermodynamics and statistical mechanics. Years ago I saw Walter Brown debate a biologist. When he got to the usual snow job on thermodynamics those creationists used against biologists at that time, he revealed total incompetence with the subject. Unfortunately the biologist still lost the debate because he was totally unaware of what the game was.

Rolf · 23 July 2011

Isn't the problem actually the way in which too many kids have had their minds conditioned before they reach high school age?

I am reminded of a syndicated American columnist, Southern Baptist, who wrote on his blog about how he'd explained to his son during a visit to the seaside that the water in the oceans was a residue of the flood.

Unlearning submission to a blind faith is tough and few dare try.

Ray Martinez · 23 July 2011

circleh said:
Ray Martinez said: Exactly what Darwinists do: use their "credentials" to terrorize anyone who disagrees with them. Are you saying they learned the tactic from Gish?
Will you shut up about "Darwinists"? That's as stupid as calling modern astronomers "Copernicans", you asshole. That, and the fact that you just lied about how we operate.

Dawkins, Gould and Mayr use the terms "Darwinism" and "Darwinists" quite liberally in all of their publications. I could add at least 25 other big name Darwinists to the list. The point is that YOU are ignorant and unread.

Ray Martinez · 23 July 2011

Mike Elzinga said:
Ray Martinez said: Exactly what Darwinists do: use their "credentials" to terrorize anyone who disagrees with them. Are you saying they learned the tactic from Gish?
One of the prime characteristics of you ID/creationists is your habit of projecting. And projecting is always accompanied by your whining persecution complex when you are called out on your bullshit. Many of Morris’s and Gish’s favorite piles, and piles, and piles of pure bullshit are still being used today even as they were used back then. Keeping bullshit out of the classroom is a professional responsibility of any good instructor. If that terrorizes you, then it is a victory for justice.

I applaud the fact that you do not deny that Darwinists emulate Gish.

apokryltaros · 23 July 2011

Ray Martinez said:
circleh said:
Ray Martinez said: Exactly what Darwinists do: use their "credentials" to terrorize anyone who disagrees with them. Are you saying they learned the tactic from Gish?
Will you shut up about "Darwinists"? That's as stupid as calling modern astronomers "Copernicans", you asshole. That, and the fact that you just lied about how we operate.
Dawkins, Gould and Mayr use the terms "Darwinism" and "Darwinists" quite liberally in all of their publications. I could add at least 25 other big name Darwinists to the list. The point is that YOU are ignorant and unread.

We're the ones ignorant and unread? When you bandy the terms "Darwinism" and "Darwinist" to smear anyone and everyone you hate, whether actual biologists or other Creationists who do not ape you, in the exact same way Hitler used the term "Jude"?

apokryltaros · 23 July 2011

Ray Martinez said:
Mike Elzinga said:
Ray Martinez said: Exactly what Darwinists do: use their "credentials" to terrorize anyone who disagrees with them. Are you saying they learned the tactic from Gish?
One of the prime characteristics of you ID/creationists is your habit of projecting. And projecting is always accompanied by your whining persecution complex when you are called out on your bullshit. Many of Morris’s and Gish’s favorite piles, and piles, and piles of pure bullshit are still being used today even as they were used back then. Keeping bullshit out of the classroom is a professional responsibility of any good instructor. If that terrorizes you, then it is a victory for justice.
I applaud the fact that you do not deny that Darwinists emulate Gish.

Young Earth Creationists whom you do not like are not "Darwinists." That, and actual biologists and other scientists do not emulate Gish, either. If you're going to go around accusing us of being ignorant and unread, while simultaneously displaying subpar reading comprehension skills, don't be surprised at people calling attention to your own hypocritical stupidity.

apokryltaros · 23 July 2011

Hey, Dave, you don't suppose we can kill this thread now?

Mike Elzinga · 23 July 2011

Ray Martinez said: I applaud the fact that you do not deny that Darwinists emulate Gish.

If there is one thing we can count on from the likes of Ray Martinez, it’s that he cannot articulate any concepts in science. That’s because he has either never been in a science class or has never paid attention. He simply doesn’t know what goes on in a science class of any sort. Trying to imagine what goes on in a proper science course and then engaging in projection simply doesn’t work. It looks stupid. Is taunting all you’ve got left, Ray? Are you going to start the Gish Gallop and copy/paste some taunts? What; no substance or no clue? Just mindless parroting? Take the bullshit over to the Bathroom Wall, Ray.

mrg · 23 July 2011

There people go again, talking about this "Ray" guy. He doesn't really exist, does he? You've got to be putting me on.

Mike Elzinga · 23 July 2011

mrg said: There people go again, talking about this "Ray" guy. He doesn't really exist, does he? You've got to be putting me on.

Ah; you have your Ray⋅Ban^® glasses on. I didn’t know that they could block a Ray of Dope

John · 23 July 2011

Ray Martinez the delusional mendacious Xian fanatic decreed:
circleh said:
Ray Martinez said: Exactly what Darwinists do: use their "credentials" to terrorize anyone who disagrees with them. Are you saying they learned the tactic from Gish?
Will you shut up about "Darwinists"? That's as stupid as calling modern astronomers "Copernicans", you asshole. That, and the fact that you just lied about how we operate.
Dawkins, Gould and Mayr use the terms "Darwinism" and "Darwinists" quite liberally in all of their publications. I could add at least 25 other big name Darwinists to the list. The point is that YOU are ignorant and unread.

My dear decomposed arse licker (Since you are merely licking Henry Morris's decomposing arse IMHO.) they are referring to Darwinian thought or just using it as a shorthand description of evolution via natural selection. However, unlike Dawkins, Gould and Meyer, you and your fellow Xian mendacious intellectual pornographers use these terms as derisive epithets, which is why you deserve to be known as IDiots (though in your case, a more apt description is decomposed arse licker).

John · 23 July 2011

Ray Martinez the delusional mendacious Xian fanatic barked:
Mike Elzinga said:
Ray Martinez said: Exactly what Darwinists do: use their "credentials" to terrorize anyone who disagrees with them. Are you saying they learned the tactic from Gish?
One of the prime characteristics of you ID/creationists is your habit of projecting. And projecting is always accompanied by your whining persecution complex when you are called out on your bullshit. Many of Morris’s and Gish’s favorite piles, and piles, and piles of pure bullshit are still being used today even as they were used back then. Keeping bullshit out of the classroom is a professional responsibility of any good instructor. If that terrorizes you, then it is a victory for justice.
I applaud the fact that you do not deny that Darwinists emulate Gish.

Oh, au contraire, Ray, the decomposed arse licker. I think Mike does stress that "Darwinists" do not act like your favorite living Xian decomposed arse licker: Duane Gish.

John · 23 July 2011

apokryltaros said: Hey, Dave, you don't suppose we can kill this thread now?

I second that endorsement, Dave. Let's put an end to Ray's foul stench of mendacity pretending to be "enlightened" Xian thought now.

mrg · 23 July 2011

Mike Elzinga said: Ah; you have your Ray-Ban glasses on.

Well, if Ray really exists, something's filtering him out. But I still think you're trying to pull a fast one on me. You can't really expect me to believe Ray really exists, can you? Next you'll be telling me you know a six-foot invisible rabbit named Harvey. Are they possibly related? If Ray doesn't look like a giant invisible rabbit, then what does he look like?

Mike Elzinga · 23 July 2011

mrg said: Next you'll be telling me you know a six-foot invisible rabbit named Harvey. Are they possibly related? If Ray doesn't look like a giant invisible rabbit, then what does he look like?

The Shadow knows!

John · 23 July 2011

Mike Elzinga said:
mrg said: Next you'll be telling me you know a six-foot invisible rabbit named Harvey. Are they possibly related? If Ray doesn't look like a giant invisible rabbit, then what does he look like?
The Shadow knows!

No, Mike. It's the Force. May the Force be with you!

Dave Thomas · 23 July 2011

I'll pull the plug, then, by popular demand. Seems like the Discover special issue discussion ran adrift, anyway. Ciao, Dave