Another case of ... erm ... Darwinist censorship

Those Darwinists, always opposing the fraud of ID being portrayed as some kind of science.

The censors! Frauds ought not to be exposed, especially not ID frauds.

Glen Davidson

Wait . . . Panda's Thumb is atheist leaning??!!!

Carl Drews said: Wait . . . Panda's Thumb is atheist leaning??!!!

Glen Davidson said: It [Panda's Thumb] demands (legitimate) evidence for scientific claims, doesn't it?

Carl Drews said: Wait . . . Panda's Thumb is atheist leaning??!!!

I wish that Mark Perakh were here (and not just for this, of course).

http://www.talkreason.org/articles/olle.cfm

They're being attacked by the educated intelligent segment of society?

(Or however that was worded.)

I don't understand.
It was the purpose to censor a ID scholarly work in some publication. That was the passion.
This guy threw in his two cents about the subject with the desire to persuade them not publishing.
This is the spirit and deed of interference with decisions already made. Its aggressive censorship.
Am I wrong here?!

Without the attack there would of been no inhouse awareness of any scholarly problem.
There was no scholarly problem. It was a conclusion problem not liked by those with opposing conclusions.
We are in a age of intellectual revolution in biological origins and so there is a protagonist , as always, in the story using, as usual, the tactics of the side on the way out.
Blatant censorship spirit and philosophy.
I think its funny although like a lame old movie.

Will it work? Has this censorship slowed anything? It seems creationisms are riding high in the saddle these days.
We don't censor or most of us. Creationists,mostly, are more sensitive educated to allowing freedom of conscience and freedom to draw conclusions from the evidence that one presents. Creationists also censor and seek control of conclusions but not as bad as our opponents.
i can speak as i have been censored by all sides and I mean all. Also allowed freedom.
I guess of enquiry and thought and speech is difficult for society's to handle. However its the historic contract in our civilization.
The truth will not be stopped.

Robert Byers said: I don't understand. It was the purpose to censor a ID scholarly work in some publication. That was the passion. This guy threw in his two cents about the subject with the desire to persuade them not publishing. This is the spirit and deed of interference with decisions already made. Its aggressive censorship. Am I wrong here?! Without the attack there would of been no inhouse awareness of any scholarly problem. There was no scholarly problem. It was a conclusion problem not liked by those with opposing conclusions. We are in a age of intellectual revolution in biological origins and so there is a protagonist , as always, in the story using, as usual, the tactics of the side on the way out. Blatant censorship spirit and philosophy. I think its funny although like a lame old movie. Will it work? Has this censorship slowed anything? It seems creationisms are riding high in the saddle these days. We don't censor or most of us. Creationists,mostly, are more sensitive educated to allowing freedom of conscience and freedom to draw conclusions from the evidence that one presents. Creationists also censor and seek control of conclusions but not as bad as our opponents. i can speak as i have been censored by all sides and I mean all. Also allowed freedom. I guess of enquiry and thought and speech is difficult for society's to handle. However its the historic contract in our civilization. The truth will not be stopped.

Carl Drews said: Wait . . . Panda's Thumb is atheist leaning??!!!

Robert Byers said: I don't understand. It was the purpose to censor a ID scholarly work in some publication. That was the passion. This guy threw in his two cents about the subject with the desire to persuade them not publishing.

Without the attack there would of been no inhouse awareness of any scholarly problem.

We are in a age of intellectual revolution in biological origins and so there is a protagonist , as always, in the story using, as usual, the tactics of the side on the way out.

So Byers didn't read the article and has no idea what he is talking about. How typical. And the turd is complaining about censorship on a blog that allows him to post any stupid, ignorant thing he wants to, even if he can't form a coherent sentence! Irony thy name is Byers.

Tom English said: I wish that Mark Perakh were here (and not just for this, of course). http://www.talkreason.org/articles/olle.cfm

eric said: Bob's letter suggested Springer publish the book as a biology book rather than an engineering book. How is that "persuade them not publishing?"

This has the potential to be a controversial text (as the editors are all active in pushing Intelligent Design), so I'm wondering why it's being published as an engineering text, rather than biology: it would seem to be a better fit there.

The suggestion that creationists don't censor...

...priceless.

Censorship?

I wonder, have they bothered to count how many anti-science books are out there in bookstores, libraries, etc.?

david.starling.macmillan said: The suggestion that creationists don't censor... ...priceless.

Or find someone who is willing to talk about methods, materials,

eric said:

Robert Byers said: I don't understand. It was the purpose to censor a ID scholarly work in some publication. That was the passion. This guy threw in his two cents about the subject with the desire to persuade them not publishing.

Bob's letter suggested Springer publish the book as a biology book rather than an engineering book. How is that "persuade them not publishing?"

Without the attack there would of been no inhouse awareness of any scholarly problem.

With the exception of the word "attack," this may be true.

We are in a age of intellectual revolution in biological origins and so there is a protagonist , as always, in the story using, as usual, the tactics of the side on the way out.

The protagonist in a story is the main character. Typically the good guy. I think you mean antagonist.

Henry J said: Censorship? I wonder, have they bothered to count how many anti-science books are out there in bookstores, libraries, etc.?

david.starling.macmillan said: The suggestion that creationists don't censor... ...priceless.

Rolf said:

Henry J said: Censorship? I wonder, have they bothered to count how many anti-science books are out there in bookstores, libraries, etc.?

Quackey galore. Quack science, quack religion, quack medicine, it goes on and on. L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology, All the crazy Watchtower publications. My 1971 copy of "The Water of Life" (urine therapy) went out with the garbage long ago... Still is in print, 2005 edition at Amazon... Creationists are tolerated at many science sites and sites they have no legitimate reasons to pester with their nonsense. Censorship is for creationist sites, censorship at Uncommon Descent has left the IDiots talking to themselves. Closed to opposing views is a regular feature of creationist sites. Try this one: Evolutionary Truth by Piltdown Superman Just the tip of a veritable iceberg of creationist craziness.

Robert Byers said: I don't understand. It was the purpose to censor a ID scholarly work in some publication. That was the passion. This guy threw in his two cents about the subject with the desire to persuade them not publishing. This is the spirit and deed of interference with decisions already made. Its aggressive censorship. Am I wrong here?! Without the attack there would of been no inhouse awareness of any scholarly problem. There was no scholarly problem. It was a conclusion problem not liked by those with opposing conclusions. We are in a age of intellectual revolution in biological origins and so there is a protagonist , as always, in the story using, as usual, the tactics of the side on the way out. Blatant censorship spirit and philosophy. I think its funny although like a lame old movie. Will it work? Has this censorship slowed anything? It seems creationisms are riding high in the saddle these days. We don't censor or most of us. Creationists,mostly, are more sensitive educated to allowing freedom of conscience and freedom to draw conclusions from the evidence that one presents. Creationists also censor and seek control of conclusions but not as bad as our opponents. i can speak as i have been censored by all sides and I mean all. Also allowed freedom. I guess of enquiry and thought and speech is difficult for society's to handle. However its the historic contract in our civilization. The truth will not be stopped.

More delusional paranoia from Byers. He doesn't want it submitted as biology because he knows it will be rejected. But he does want it published as engineering because they might get away with it! Any deception is justified because of the perceived "censorship", even if it exists only in their minds.

Harold is right, as soon as creationists start publishing mainstream science in their in-house publications they can start whining about censorship. Until then they are just being hypocrites.

Keep it up Bobby boy, we can all see how you are being "censored".

Robert Byers said: I don't understand. It was the purpose to censor a ID scholarly work in some publication. That was the passion. This guy threw in his two cents about the subject with the desire to persuade them not publishing. This is the spirit and deed of interference with decisions already made. Its aggressive censorship. Am I wrong here?! Without the attack there would of been no inhouse awareness of any scholarly problem. There was no scholarly problem. It was a conclusion problem not liked by those with opposing conclusions. We are in a age of intellectual revolution in biological origins and so there is a protagonist , as always, in the story using, as usual, the tactics of the side on the way out. Blatant censorship spirit and philosophy. I think its funny although like a lame old movie. Will it work? Has this censorship slowed anything? It seems creationisms are riding high in the saddle these days. We don't censor or most of us. Creationists,mostly, are more sensitive educated to allowing freedom of conscience and freedom to draw conclusions from the evidence that one presents. Creationists also censor and seek control of conclusions but not as bad as our opponents. i can speak as i have been censored by all sides and I mean all. Also allowed freedom. I guess of enquiry and thought and speech is difficult for society's to handle. However its the historic contract in our civilization. The truth will not be stopped.

See Bobby, if you want to claim censorship you have to actually submit the paper to the biology section and read the reviewers comments. If you can show that it was rejected for inappropriate reasons, then you might be able to claim censorship. Until then, STFU.

Tell you what, why don't you provide us with a copy of the paper and we will review it for you. Until then, STFU.

Booby's here in part because he's banned at UD. That, presumably, is why he admits that creationists censor some.

Of course that means he has to be on less-censored forums, the evilutionist ones. Babbling idiocy, sound-bites that ignorant, dishonest bozos told him, and, he being an ignorant, dishonest (if stupid enough to believe what he writes, too lazy and dishonest to even try to discover the truth) bozo, it's all that he "knows."

So, the dim-witted buffoon is still blithering about "censorship" by the only ones who let his ignorant tripe through, the "censoring" side.

He's not whining that quantum woo isn't being published as science, because that's quasi-religious junk he doesn't believe in. He's whining that his clearly religious tripe isn't being published as science, because creationists are censored, you know. He just has to whine here because UD creationists banned him from their echo chamber for writing some of the prejudicial junk he's prone to spout, while he can still be grossly stupid and dishonest here.

Glen Davidson

Freedom of speech means that you can say anything you want, aside from issues like slander and libel. In no way, shape, form, or regard does that obligate anyone to provide you with a forum.

Yes, all of this is true, but, let us consider, not only the right to say what one wants, but also the right to hear or read what they want. If the creators of content are free to say/write what they want, but no one is permitted to hear/read it, there is no true freedom. But the reverse is problematic: If I want to hear/read something, and no one is interested in providing it to me, is this a violation of a right? For a real-world example, if someone owns a copyright on something, and refuses to make it available to others, is there a right of others to obtain that material, and that right being violated? (In the case of copyright protection, the power of the state enforces it.) There are all sorts of different cases: the heirs to a creative soul who don't like what was produced; or even the creator who has a change of heart. (There are famous cases, Virgil and Kafka spring to mind, where the wishes of the artists were ignored after his death.)

TomS said: Yes, all of this is true, but, let us consider, not only the right to say what one wants, but also the right to hear or read what they want. If the creators of content are free to say/write what they want, but no one is permitted to hear/read it, there is no true freedom. But the reverse is problematic: If I want to hear/read something, and no one is interested in providing it to me, is this a violation of a right? For a real-world example, if someone owns a copyright on something, and refuses to make it available to others, is there a right of others to obtain that material, and that right being violated? (In the case of copyright protection, the power of the state enforces it.) There are all sorts of different cases: the heirs to a creative soul who don't like what was produced; or even the creator who has a change of heart. (There are famous cases, Virgil and Kafka spring to mind, where the wishes of the artists were ignored after his death.)

TomS said: Yes, all of this is true, but, let us consider, not only the right to say what one wants, but also the right to hear or read what they want. If the creators of content are free to say/write what they want, but no one is permitted to hear/read it, there is no true freedom. But the reverse is problematic: If I want to hear/read something, and no one is interested in providing it to me, is this a violation of a right? For a real-world example, if someone owns a copyright on something, and refuses to make it available to others, is there a right of others to obtain that material, and that right being violated? (In the case of copyright protection, the power of the state enforces it.) There are all sorts of different cases: the heirs to a creative soul who don't like what was produced; or even the creator who has a change of heart. (There are famous cases, Virgil and Kafka spring to mind, where the wishes of the artists were ignored after his death.)

Freedom of silence. :-)

Was it wrong for the literary executors of Virgil and Kafka to ignore their express wishes that their unfinished works be destroyed?

Is it right for the heirs of certain writers to keep their unpublished works secret - of to refuse reprinting of works still under copywright?

In the extreme case, when somebody buys a work of art, is he free to destroy it? (Did the Taliban have the right to destroy the Bamiyan Buddhas?)

Turns out that neither Virgil nor Kafka actually minded what happened after they died.

Glen Davidson

Was it wrong for the literary executors of Virgil and Kafka to ignore their express wishes that their unfinished works be destroyed?

Is it right for the heirs of certain writers to keep their unpublished works secret - of to refuse reprinting of works still under copywright?

In the extreme case, when somebody buys a work of art, is he free to destroy it?

(Did the Taliban have the right to destroy the Bamiyan Buddhas?)

The Flying Spaghetti Monster told me that Kafka is in Spaghetti Heaven now, and he's thrilled, in retrospect, that his posthumous works were published.

Of course, he'd be equally thrilled if they weren't. That's why it's heaven.

To what extent is a work of art the property of the artist and hence his/her heirs, and to what extent is it the common property of all humanity?

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: Turns out that neither Virgil nor Kafka actually minded what happened after they died. Glen Davidson

Dave Luckett said: To what extent is a work of art the property of the artist and hence his/her heirs, and to what extent is it the common property of all humanity?

harold said: I'm not totally sure what this has to do with the question of whether or not Springer should be compelled by force to publish creationist material, and is guilty of "censorship" is they are not.

phhht said: Caring what happens after you die is futile.

Dave Luckett said:

phhht said: Caring what happens after you die is futile.

Futile for you, true. But are you the only person concerned?

Robert Byers said: If evolutionists are that afraid of the small circles of ID thinkers/writers then is it not itself a hint at a profound lack of confidence in the science behind evolution etc??? Yes ID/YEC is making a revolution that will soon overthrow the old ideas.

In their brave new world the creationists were already trying to give censorship a comletely new meaning before BI:NP was announced by Springer. Thus, I dont't regret that in a mail to Springer I suggested to google "Granville Sewell" and "second low of thermodynamics".
If (as the DI pretending) it was illegal for Springer to let BI:NP die quietly why then didn't the editors or the DI sue them?
Anyway, even if the book had been published by Springer ID-creationists would still play the censorship card by discrediting any critical discussion of its content as attempts to censor them.

Just Bob said:

Dave Luckett said:

phhht said: Caring what happens after you die is futile.

Futile for you, true. But are you the only person concerned?

After you die, you're not concerned at all. You have ceased to have any legal rights, inasmuch as you have ceased to exist. Even your will is not your concern any longer. You have no legal control over it (you're DEAD). It is now the concern and responsibility of executors and possibly courts. While you're alive and concerned about such things you can create a will, change it, or rescind it as you please. Yes, others are concerned after you die, and may execute your will and dispose of your assets, tangible and intangible (like copyrights). But wills might be contested and possibly abrogated altogether -- and you can't do a damn thing about it, because you're no longer concerned.

Dave Luckett said:

phhht said: Caring what happens after you die is futile.

Futile for you, true. But are you the only person concerned?

TomS said:

harold said: I'm not totally sure what this has to do with the question of whether or not Springer should be compelled by force to publish creationist material, and is guilty of "censorship" is they are not.

To be honest, I don't quite recall what led me on to this. It's clearly off-topic. And at this time, I don't have anything that is worth bringing to your attention. I do thank you for what your had to say.

Daniel said:

Robert Byers said: If evolutionists are that afraid of the small circles of ID thinkers/writers then is it not itself a hint at a profound lack of confidence in the science behind evolution etc??? Yes ID/YEC is making a revolution that will soon overthrow the old ideas.

I have never seen such a self-delusional comment ever in my life. I am willing to bet, with a legal binding contract and everything, every single penny I've earned and every single possession I own up to that point, that in 20 years from now the theory of evolution will still be overwhelmingly supported as the foundational idea of biology.

harold said:

Daniel said:

Robert Byers said: If evolutionists are that afraid of the small circles of ID thinkers/writers then is it not itself a hint at a profound lack of confidence in the science behind evolution etc??? Yes ID/YEC is making a revolution that will soon overthrow the old ideas.

I have never seen such a self-delusional comment ever in my life. I am willing to bet, with a legal binding contract and everything, every single penny I've earned and every single possession I own up to that point, that in 20 years from now the theory of evolution will still be overwhelmingly supported as the foundational idea of biology.

To the authoritarian mind, whatever ideology the authoritarian has accepted must be right, no matter what. Therefore everything else is rationalized away. Consistency is not required. The only consistency of authoritarians is that they are consistently authoritarian ideologues. If Robert Byers thinks he sees evidence that creationism is popular, or that some actual scientist doubts the theory of evolution, that's evidence for creationism to him. But if he sees evidence that creationism is not widely accepted or refuted by reputable scientists, no problem. That means that creationism is oppressed and censored, like...Galileo*! Which also proves that creationism must be right. (*Galileo was technically one of the first scientists to show strong evidence against a "literal" interpretation of the Bible, but creationists love to compare themselves to him.) As you can see, there's no consistency, except a consistent refusal to accept any evidence against the creationist ideology. Exact opposite situations are said to support creationism. Creationists will dress up as scientists and dig up dinosaur fossils. Everything always supports creationism. And if something can't be twisted to supporting creationism, it has to be wrong. Even the ideology itself is only mildly consistent. You have to deny human evolution, say that the Earth "could" be around 6000 years old, and declare that Noah's ark "could" be a literal story. For now, other elements are flexible. Those elements aren't, though, and at least one prominent ID/creationist has learned with some discomfort. (We have sometimes heard the claim in this forum that not all ID advocates adhere to these ideological conventions. I have easily demonstrated in the recent past, with a minute or two on Google, that those held up as ostensibly "accepting" the age of the Earth or whatever usually do not actually do so. Rather, some of the more weaselly ID advocates, whose understood role within the ideology is to disguise the nature of ID for legal reasons, make ambiguous statements about the age of the Earth. Behe gets away with a bit more because he is a peripheral figure who came into the movement sideways. I challenge anyone to show me a definitive quote by any other DI fellow or even any other author of an ID or creationist book that specifically states that a 6000 year old Earth or the Noah's ark story is definitively wrong. "The Earth 'could' be 4.5 billion years old" is a simpleton trick that is understood to mean "...wink, wink, but it 'could' also be 6000 years old". Part of the authoritarian mindset is the belief that if their view "could" be right, it wins by default, so don't be fooled by "could be" dissembling.)

SLC said: Well, Behe did testify during his Dover interrogation that he accepted common descent (in response to a question from the defense lawyers). That was pretty definitive.

harold said:

Daniel said:

Robert Byers said: If evolutionists are that afraid of the small circles of ID thinkers/writers then is it not itself a hint at a profound lack of confidence in the science behind evolution etc??? Yes ID/YEC is making a revolution that will soon overthrow the old ideas.

I have never seen such a self-delusional comment ever in my life. I am willing to bet, with a legal binding contract and everything, every single penny I've earned and every single possession I own up to that point, that in 20 years from now the theory of evolution will still be overwhelmingly supported as the foundational idea of biology.

To the authoritarian mind, whatever ideology the authoritarian has accepted must be right, no matter what. Therefore everything else is rationalized away. Consistency is not required. The only consistency of authoritarians is that they are consistently authoritarian ideologues. If Robert Byers thinks he sees evidence that creationism is popular, or that some actual scientist doubts the theory of evolution, that's evidence for creationism to him. But if he sees evidence that creationism is not widely accepted or refuted by reputable scientists, no problem. That means that creationism is oppressed and censored, like...Galileo*! Which also proves that creationism must be right. (*Galileo was technically one of the first scientists to show strong evidence against a "literal" interpretation of the Bible, but creationists love to compare themselves to him.) As you can see, there's no consistency, except a consistent refusal to accept any evidence against the creationist ideology. Exact opposite situations are said to support creationism. Creationists will dress up as scientists and dig up dinosaur fossils. Everything always supports creationism. And if something can't be twisted to supporting creationism, it has to be wrong. Even the ideology itself is only mildly consistent. You have to deny human evolution, say that the Earth "could" be around 6000 years old, and declare that Noah's ark "could" be a literal story. For now, other elements are flexible. Those elements aren't, though, and at least one prominent ID/creationist has learned with some discomfort. (We have sometimes heard the claim in this forum that not all ID advocates adhere to these ideological conventions. I have easily demonstrated in the recent past, with a minute or two on Google, that those held up as ostensibly "accepting" the age of the Earth or whatever usually do not actually do so. Rather, some of the more weaselly ID advocates, whose understood role within the ideology is to disguise the nature of ID for legal reasons, make ambiguous statements about the age of the Earth. Behe gets away with a bit more because he is a peripheral figure who came into the movement sideways. I challenge anyone to show me a definitive quote by any other DI fellow or even any other author of an ID or creationist book that specifically states that a 6000 year old Earth or the Noah's ark story is definitively wrong. "The Earth 'could' be 4.5 billion years old" is a simpleton trick that is understood to mean "...wink, wink, but it 'could' also be 6000 years old". Part of the authoritarian mindset is the belief that if their view "could" be right, it wins by default, so don't be fooled by "could be" dissembling.)

Daniel said: I have never seen such a self-delusional comment ever in my life. I am willing to bet, with a legal binding contract and everything, every single penny I've earned and every single possession I own up to that point, that in 20 years from now the theory of evolution will still be overwhelmingly supported as the foundational idea of biology.

Hugh Ross of Reasons To Believe will quite unequivocally point out the fallacies of a young Earth, a young universe, and a recent global flood. But he, like other OECs, denies the reality of common descent in order to maintain that a creator is required to explain the diversity of life.

harold said: I'll concede Behe if I see a non-coerced quote from Behe that the Earth is definitively less that 6000 years old, cannot be 6000 years old if science is remotely accurate about anything, saying the same about Noah's ark, and saying the same about human evolution, specifically, a non-coerced Behe outright stating that humans definitively evolved from non-human ancestors.

harold said: 2) The age of the Earth is the primary factor in denial of evolution. Creationists are always saying that they accept “microevolution”. The scientist seeks in vain to understand where they “draw the line” between micro- and macro-evolution. After all, it’s all “microevolution” from a scientific point of view.

callahanpb said:

harold said: I'll concede Behe if I see a non-coerced quote from Behe that the Earth is definitively less that 6000 years old, cannot be 6000 years old if science is remotely accurate about anything, saying the same about Noah's ark, and saying the same about human evolution, specifically, a non-coerced Behe outright stating that humans definitively evolved from non-human ancestors.

I have trouble believing that Behe is really a YEC, because he doesn't have the cultural investment in such a ridiculous, extreme point of view. According to the wikipedia page, he grew up in Harrisburg, PA and attended Catholic school there. I met a fair number of people from Harrisburg while in college, and I also went to Catholic school. YEC just doesn't fit the profile. So my default assumption is that Behe's being honest if he says he does not believe the earth is 6000 years old. I just don't see how any sane person could accept that conclusion without serious, focused indoctrination from an early age. Behe may have a political investment in not offending his YEC allies, which would account for hedging. Why he pushes ID is another matter entirely. My guess it that he really thinks he is making an important critique of evolution. He's not a biologist. He's a biochemist, and it is possible, though unusual for him to have acquired expertise in that field while missing some rudimentary points about how science is actually practiced. You don't have to concede anything, and it would be entirely appropriate to push Behe for a non-coerced, unambiguous statement, which may not be forthcoming mainly out of expediency rather than belief.

Evolution from a common ancestor, via changes in DNA, is very well supported. It may or may not be random.

callahanpb said:

harold said: I'll concede Behe if I see a non-coerced quote from Behe that the Earth is definitively less that 6000 years old, cannot be 6000 years old if science is remotely accurate about anything, saying the same about Noah's ark, and saying the same about human evolution, specifically, a non-coerced Behe outright stating that humans definitively evolved from non-human ancestors.

I have trouble believing that Behe is really a YEC, because he doesn't have the cultural investment in such a ridiculous, extreme point of view. According to the wikipedia page, he grew up in Harrisburg, PA and attended Catholic school there. I met a fair number of people from Harrisburg while in college, and I also went to Catholic school. YEC just doesn't fit the profile. So my default assumption is that Behe's being honest if he says he does not believe the earth is 6000 years old. I just don't see how any sane person could accept that conclusion without serious, focused indoctrination from an early age. Behe may have a political investment in not offending his YEC allies, which would account for hedging. Why he pushes ID is another matter entirely. My guess it that he really thinks he is making an important critique of evolution. He's not a biologist. He's a biochemist, and it is possible, though unusual for him to have acquired expertise in that field while missing some rudimentary points about how science is actually practiced. You don't have to concede anything, and it would be entirely appropriate to push Behe for a non-coerced, unambiguous statement, which may not be forthcoming mainly out of expediency rather than belief.

david.starling.macmillan said: Hugh Ross of Reasons To Believe will quite unequivocally point out the fallacies of a young Earth, a young universe, and a recent global flood. But he, like other OECs, denies the reality of common descent in order to maintain that a creator is required to explain the diversity of life.

Evolution from a common ancestor, via changes in DNA, is very well supported. It may or may not be random.

harold said: If Behe were not pandering to YEC, that would not in the slightest change my point that ID/creationism is overall part of an authoritarian social/political movement that panders to YEC. But...

Evolution from a common ancestor, via changes in DNA, is very well supported. It may or may not be random.

This quote could come from Todd Wood. Except that Todd Wood isn't as weaselly. "May or may not be random". What the heck does that mean? It looks like a straw man mischaracterization of the theory of evolution to me. "Is very well supported". That's the dishonest tactic known as "damning with faint praise". It isn't "very well" supported. It's massively, overwhelmingly supported by multiple converging lines of independent evidence. What Behe "accepts" is pay checks. He keeps his language weaselly enough to not turn off the YEC customers. They all do. Except Hugh Ross, because Hugh Ross is an outdated Canadian crackpot with a website that nobody cares about. Again, who knows what Behe "believes"? A tough, experienced judge had him under oath and had a hard time pulling a straight answer out of him.

To be sure, Behe isn't necessarily the one who named his book The Edge of Evolution.

But if he thought that the title was contrary to his beliefs he had the obligation to veto that title, switching publishers if necessary.

Glen Davidson

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: To be sure, Behe isn't necessarily the one who named his book The Edge of Evolution. But if he thought that the title was contrary to his beliefs he had the obligation to veto that title, switching publishers if necessary. Glen Davidson

harold said: I did not say that Behe "is" a YEC, nor that any ID type "is" a YEC. That is, while you clearly did not intend it this way, a straw man version of my point. What I said is that they all pander to YEC by dishonestly refusing to make strong, unambiguous statements that life is more than 10,000 years old, that there was no a global flood 4000 years ago, or that humans unequivocally descended from pre-human ancestors.

harold said: If Behe were not pandering to YEC, that would not in the slightest change my point that ID/creationism is overall part of an authoritarian social/political movement that panders to YEC. But...

Evolution from a common ancestor, via changes in DNA, is very well supported. It may or may not be random.

This quote could come from Todd Wood. Except that Todd Wood isn't as weaselly. "May or may not be random". What the heck does that mean? It looks like a straw man mischaracterization of the theory of evolution to me. "Is very well supported". That's the dishonest tactic known as "damning with faint praise". It isn't "very well" supported. It's massively, overwhelmingly supported by multiple converging lines of independent evidence. What Behe "accepts" is pay checks. He keeps his language weaselly enough to not turn off the YEC customers. They all do. Except Hugh Ross, because Hugh Ross is an outdated Canadian crackpot with a website that nobody cares about. Again, who knows what Behe "believes"? A tough, experienced judge had him under oath and had a hard time pulling a straight answer out of him.

harold said:

david.starling.macmillan said: Hugh Ross of Reasons To Believe will quite unequivocally point out the fallacies of a young Earth, a young universe, and a recent global flood. But he, like other OECs, denies the reality of common descent in order to maintain that a creator is required to explain the diversity of life.

I covered that. "Old Earth Creationism - actually accepting scientific evidence for an Old Earth but not for evolution - did exist in the pre-molecular biology era, but it is an anachronism - why not just be a “theistic evolutionist” if the Earth is old?" I guess I should say "does" exist, but again, it's an eccentric anachronism. Ross is only 69 or so, but represents a view that was anachronistic by the time he adopted it. Very few people car about "OEC" because, again, one of the major reasons for rejecting evolution has always been rejection of an old Earth. The other reason, and admittedly they tend to go together, is racism-based emotional response to the fact that all humans share common ancestry with other primates.

To clarify: the reason to oppose common descent is based on the misinterpretation of Romans 1 and the need for a "proof" that God "had" to have been involved in creation.

harold said:

Robert Byers said: I don't understand. It was the purpose to censor a ID scholarly work in some publication. That was the passion. This guy threw in his two cents about the subject with the desire to persuade them not publishing. This is the spirit and deed of interference with decisions already made. Its aggressive censorship. Am I wrong here?! Without the attack there would of been no inhouse awareness of any scholarly problem. There was no scholarly problem. It was a conclusion problem not liked by those with opposing conclusions. We are in a age of intellectual revolution in biological origins and so there is a protagonist , as always, in the story using, as usual, the tactics of the side on the way out. Blatant censorship spirit and philosophy. I think its funny although like a lame old movie. Will it work? Has this censorship slowed anything? It seems creationisms are riding high in the saddle these days. We don't censor or most of us. Creationists,mostly, are more sensitive educated to allowing freedom of conscience and freedom to draw conclusions from the evidence that one presents. Creationists also censor and seek control of conclusions but not as bad as our opponents. i can speak as i have been censored by all sides and I mean all. Also allowed freedom. I guess of enquiry and thought and speech is difficult for society's to handle. However its the historic contract in our civilization. The truth will not be stopped.

Byers' topic is on topic and relevant, but reflects a misunderstanding of basic human rights. No-one is censoring ID, and this blog is extreme proof of that. We talk about and openly quote ID sources all the time. If ID/creationism were censored this blog could not exist. But Byers thinks that a decision by a private company, Springer, not to publish something, is "censorship". To put it another way, he thinks that Springer should be required by force to publish what he wants published. That's the logical extension of his position. If they are not allowed to reject a certain work for any reason, they are required by some sort of force or obligation to publish it. Springer happens to be a German company, so I'll speak in terms of universal human rights rather than the US constitution. Contrary to Byers' implication, Casey Luskin and other ID/creationists do not have inherent privilege and authority over publishing companies. This is a very common right wing authoritarian misconception, not only by creationists. They think that others are obliged not only to publish their personal opinions, but to literally pay them for having those opinions. This reveals, in the end, a total contempt for the rights of others. If I start a publishing company, and a creationist sends in a submission, and I decided, for any reason, not to buy and publish it, according to Byers' logic, I have "censored" that creationist. What if my company just doesn't want to publish creationism? What if my company publishes creationism, but not that particular creationism? In creationist world, the first is not allowed, and the second is suspect. Needless to say, the same minds who think it is "censorship" for a private company not to pay them for being creationists actually support illegal censorship, correctly defined, in numerous other circumstances.

Daniel said:

Robert Byers said: If evolutionists are that afraid of the small circles of ID thinkers/writers then is it not itself a hint at a profound lack of confidence in the science behind evolution etc??? Yes ID/YEC is making a revolution that will soon overthrow the old ideas.

I have never seen such a self-delusional comment ever in my life. I am willing to bet, with a legal binding contract and everything, every single penny I've earned and every single possession I own up to that point, that in 20 years from now the theory of evolution will still be overwhelmingly supported as the foundational idea of biology.

Robert Byers said: We all live together and have a social contract to allow publication of ideas. for anyone to stop that, persons or companies, is breaking this contract. Its censorship of ideas not welcomed. Why is something being refused publication is a right of society.

Robert Byers said:

Daniel said:

Robert Byers said: If evolutionists are that afraid of the small circles of ID thinkers/writers then is it not itself a hint at a profound lack of confidence in the science behind evolution etc??? Yes ID/YEC is making a revolution that will soon overthrow the old ideas.

I have never seen such a self-delusional comment ever in my life. I am willing to bet, with a legal binding contract and everything, every single penny I've earned and every single possession I own up to that point, that in 20 years from now the theory of evolution will still be overwhelmingly supported as the foundational idea of biology.

Its a bet. i think 15 years will be the most needed. anyways i'll see you then and still the money.

Robert Byers said: I'm not saying publishers must do anything. Its a bigger subject of WHY something was refused being published when ALREADY they had agreed. Others weighed in asking for its being not published. so it was a spirit of censorship that made it a known case. if the company ONLY refused because of the complaints then its rrightly charged creationism was censored for its conclusions. not competence or passing other requirements for publication. We all live together and have a social contract to allow publication of ideas. for anyone to stop that, persons or companies, is breaking this contract. Its censorship of ideas not welcomed. Why is something being refused publication is a right of society.

david.starling.macmillan said:

harold said:

david.starling.macmillan said: Hugh Ross of Reasons To Believe will quite unequivocally point out the fallacies of a young Earth, a young universe, and a recent global flood. But he, like other OECs, denies the reality of common descent in order to maintain that a creator is required to explain the diversity of life.

I covered that. "Old Earth Creationism - actually accepting scientific evidence for an Old Earth but not for evolution - did exist in the pre-molecular biology era, but it is an anachronism - why not just be a “theistic evolutionist” if the Earth is old?" I guess I should say "does" exist, but again, it's an eccentric anachronism. Ross is only 69 or so, but represents a view that was anachronistic by the time he adopted it. Very few people car about "OEC" because, again, one of the major reasons for rejecting evolution has always been rejection of an old Earth. The other reason, and admittedly they tend to go together, is racism-based emotional response to the fact that all humans share common ancestry with other primates.

Well, rejection of an old Earth on any significant scale is actually a pretty recent phenomenon. No one seriously thought the young-earth view was possible at all, at least not in mainstream evangelical circles, until The Genesis Flood came out in 1961. Prior to that, there was skepticism about some aspects of evolutionary timescales, but the Gap Theory was still almost universally accepted. Prior to The Genesis Flood, the main objections were to common descent. Which was slightly more understandable (though still fallacious) back then, as modern microbiology hadn't yet shown just how incontrovertible common descent is. Ross's approach is of course different from the Gap Theory, but he definitely reflects the position of the Old Guard overall. Of course, he has distinguished himself by coming down in open opposition to YEC, staunchly challenging it on both Biblical and scientific grounds. The average OECs (and there are quite a few of them) won't actually challenge YECs openly. They'll let YECs come and speak at their churches and so forth.

Robert Byers said:

Daniel said:

Robert Byers said: If evolutionists are that afraid of the small circles of ID thinkers/writers then is it not itself a hint at a profound lack of confidence in the science behind evolution etc??? Yes ID/YEC is making a revolution that will soon overthrow the old ideas.

I have never seen such a self-delusional comment ever in my life. I am willing to bet, with a legal binding contract and everything, every single penny I've earned and every single possession I own up to that point, that in 20 years from now the theory of evolution will still be overwhelmingly supported as the foundational idea of biology.

Its a bet. i think 15 years will be the most needed. anyways i'll see you then and still the money.

harold said: I absolutely agree. Contemporary ID/creationism is not traditional. The dates associated with it are no coincidence. There are plenty of creationist arguments that can be dated to before the 1960's.

TomS said:

harold said: I absolutely agree. Contemporary ID/creationism is not traditional. The dates associated with it are no coincidence. There are plenty of creationist arguments that can be dated to before the 1960's.

First of all, want to make it clear that I am not questioning the substance of what harold has to say. What I want to discuss is this small point. It is hard for me to think of many arguments against evolution which were not around before the 20th century. Even the supposed connection between evolution and certain early-20th century social/political movements had its corresponding argument in the 19th century and its reviled movements; and in the early 20th century, before naziism was universally recognized, there was Prussian militarism. (But if need be, I'll grant you that one.) Perhaps the newest one is the Lewis-Plantinga argument against naturalism. (But I wouldn't be surprised if some middle ages savant was to be discovered to have come up with that.) Several of them (time piece analogy, chance formation of a text, among others) go back to Classical antiquity. "Irreducible Complexity" to the 18th century.

Robert Byers said: I'm not saying publishers must do anything. Its a bigger subject of WHY something was refused being published when ALREADY they had agreed...

harold said: They use them in a rather contemporary way, though. 1) ID/creationists are often "deceptively anachronistic". They use claims that were made in good faith by historical figures who lacked current data, implying that those figures made such claims with all the data we now possess. 2) They also famously fail to acknowledge refutation of claims. 3) They use inconsistent and even self-contradictory arguments. One perceived characteristic of contemporary ID/creationists is desperation. They behave like a losing high school debate team. They say anything they can as fast as possible in an effort to make their conjectures seems supported.

The creationist are famous (or at least they ought to be famous) for making inconsistent arguments, and making arguments which (once on thinks about it, and insofar as they have any probative power) tend to cast doubt on creationism. One tends to think that they have a short attention span.

TomS said: One tends to think that they have a short attention span.

harold said:

TomS said:

harold said: I absolutely agree. Contemporary ID/creationism is not traditional. The dates associated with it are no coincidence. There are plenty of creationist arguments that can be dated to before the 1960's.

First of all, want to make it clear that I am not questioning the substance of what harold has to say. What I want to discuss is this small point. It is hard for me to think of many arguments against evolution which were not around before the 20th century. Even the supposed connection between evolution and certain early-20th century social/political movements had its corresponding argument in the 19th century and its reviled movements; and in the early 20th century, before naziism was universally recognized, there was Prussian militarism. (But if need be, I'll grant you that one.) Perhaps the newest one is the Lewis-Plantinga argument against naturalism. (But I wouldn't be surprised if some middle ages savant was to be discovered to have come up with that.) Several of them (time piece analogy, chance formation of a text, among others) go back to Classical antiquity. "Irreducible Complexity" to the 18th century.

Yes, I fully agree. ID/creationism uses unoriginal arguments. In fact almost any time an ID/creationist says anything, they use unoriginal arguments. Many of us are familiar with this partial list of frequently recycled creationist claims. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html It may seem mildly paradoxical that a contemporary movement uses so many recycled, unoriginal claims, but yes, that's what they do. They use them in a rather contemporary way, though. 1) ID/creationists are often "deceptively anachronistic". They use claims that were made in good faith by historical figures who lacked current data, implying that those figures made such claims with all the data we now possess. 2) They also famously fail to acknowledge refutation of claims. 3) They use inconsistent and even self-contradictory arguments. One perceived characteristic of contemporary ID/creationists is desperation. They behave like a losing high school debate team. They say anything they can as fast as possible in an effort to make their conjectures seems supported.

phhht said: Caring what happens after you die is futile.

I think he means caring what happens to your corpse and/or "soul" is futile. The first isn't 'you' anymore, and the second never existed in the first place.

Robert Byers said: If evolutionists are that afraid of the small circles of ID thinkers/writers then is it not itself a hint at a profound lack of confidence in the science behind evolution etc???

How about if I publish a paper in a scientific journal presenting evidence that humans are contributing to climate change. Suppose Anthony Watts gets all mad about the paper, trash-talks the journal editors and peer reviewers, and urges his followers to complain about the paper and get it retracted. Would that action constitute an attempt at censorship by Anthony Watts?

Robert Byers, a modern day Millerist.

Carl Drews said: How about if I publish a paper in a scientific journal presenting evidence that humans are contributing to climate change. Suppose Anthony Watts gets all mad about the paper, trash-talks the journal editors and peer reviewers, and urges his followers to complain about the paper and get it retracted. Would that action constitute an attempt at censorship by Anthony Watts?

This has the potential to be a controversial text (as the editors are all active in pushing Intelligent Design), so I'm wondering why it's being published as an engineering text, rather than biology: it would seem to be a better fit there.

ksplawn said:

Carl Drews said: How about if I publish a paper in a scientific journal presenting evidence that humans are contributing to climate change. Suppose Anthony Watts gets all mad about the paper, trash-talks the journal editors and peer reviewers, and urges his followers to complain about the paper and get it retracted. Would that action constitute an attempt at censorship by Anthony Watts?

At what point is something like peer-review "censorship," even? What seems to have happened here is that the original collection of essays was being published where it couldn't get the proper amount of relevant, expert scrutiny. From the post, this was what Bob O'Hara sent to Springer:

This has the potential to be a controversial text (as the editors are all active in pushing Intelligent Design), so I'm wondering why it's being published as an engineering text, rather than biology: it would seem to be a better fit there.

He suggested it was not in the proper category to get the vetting it needed. That's all. This is nothing like Watts hypothetically starting a smear campaign and organizing an angry mob to bully the journal for publishing a legitimately reviewed paper on the climate. (By the way, that hypothetical is not so very hypothetical.)

SWT said: Forget about vetting ... if the book is about biology, wouldn't it get a better, wider audience if it were marketed as a biology text? Arguably, O'Hara was doing the ID cause a favor by nudging the book towards the right audience.

Just Bob said: I think he means caring what happens to your corpse and/or "soul" is futile. The first isn't 'you' anymore, and the second never existed in the first place.

Carl Drews said: How about if I publish a paper in a scientific journal presenting evidence that humans are contributing to climate change. Suppose Anthony Watts gets all mad about the paper, trash-talks the journal editors and peer reviewers, and urges his followers to complain about the paper and get it retracted. Would that action constitute an attempt at censorship by Anthony Watts?

DS said:

Carl Drews said: How about if I publish a paper in a scientific journal presenting evidence that humans are contributing to climate change. Suppose Anthony Watts gets all mad about the paper, trash-talks the journal editors and peer reviewers, and urges his followers to complain about the paper and get it retracted. Would that action constitute an attempt at censorship by Anthony Watts?

How about if you try to publish a paper in a scientific journal on climate change that presents no evidence whatsoever but is just a statement that you don't want to believe that humans are contributing to climate change. You realize that no real climatologist will be fooled, so you submit it to an anthropology journal. They agree to publish the paper for some unknown reason, but then someone points out that it doesn't belong in an anthropology journal, since you explicitly denied any human involvement in climate change. The journal decides not to publish the paper after all. Would that action constitute an attempt at censorship?

In your scenario, yes that would be a form of censorship. At least it would be an attempt at censorship, since the complaint was not based on the content or appropriateness of the publication. But since that is not what happened in this case, it is irrelevant.

ksplawn said: Robert Byers, a modern day Millerist.

W. H. Heydt said:

ksplawn said: Robert Byers, a modern day Millerist.

/nitpick on I think they were referred ti as "Millerites" rather than "Millerists". /nitpick off Is it the SDAs, JWs or both (or neither) that derive from the Millerites?

W. H. Heydt said:

ksplawn said: Robert Byers, a modern day Millerist.

/nitpick on I think they were referred ti as "Millerites" rather than "Millerists". /nitpick off Is it the SDAs, JWs or both (or neither) that derive from the Millerites?

ksplawn said:

W. H. Heydt said:

ksplawn said: Robert Byers, a modern day Millerist.

/nitpick on I think they were referred ti as "Millerites" rather than "Millerists". /nitpick off Is it the SDAs, JWs or both (or neither) that derive from the Millerites?

Millerite is a perfectely respectable mineral!

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:

ksplawn said:

W. H. Heydt said:

ksplawn said: Robert Byers, a modern day Millerist.

/nitpick on I think they were referred ti as "Millerites" rather than "Millerists". /nitpick off Is it the SDAs, JWs or both (or neither) that derive from the Millerites?

Millerite is a perfectely respectable mineral!

But milarite is a horrid little mineral with poisonous beryllium being a fundamental element in it. Don't be fooled! Glen Davidson

Did you know They’ve been putting poisonous gases and explosive metals in our table salt? @_@ You can’t even find the stuff without those in it anymore!

Henry J said:

Did you know They’ve been putting poisonous gases and explosive metals in our table salt? @_@ You can’t even find the stuff without those in it anymore!

Better living through chemistry!

TomS said:

Henry J said:

Did you know They’ve been putting poisonous gases and explosive metals in our table salt? @_@ You can’t even find the stuff without those in it anymore!

Better living through chemistry!

And copious quantities of DHMO (dihydrogen monoxide) in our schoolroom drinking fountains! I've seen the headlines about such-and-such, which is an ingredient in a poison, in something-or-other. Maybe there was a serious problem, but the explanation is worthless.

Carl Drews said: How about if I publish a paper in a scientific journal presenting evidence that humans are contributing to climate change. Suppose Anthony Watts gets all mad about the paper, trash-talks the journal editors and peer reviewers, and urges his followers to complain about the paper and get it retracted. Would that action constitute an attempt at censorship by Anthony Watts?

harold said:

Carl Drews said: How about if I publish a paper in a scientific journal presenting evidence that humans are contributing to climate change. Suppose Anthony Watts gets all mad about the paper, trash-talks the journal editors and peer reviewers, and urges his followers to complain about the paper and get it retracted. Would that action constitute an attempt at censorship by Anthony Watts?

Of course not, and anyone who said it would was mistaking your comment as a pro-creationist comment and reacting instinctively. That's freedom of expression by Anthony Watts. As long as he doesn't cross over into libel, he has a 100% right to complain about anything he wants, to try, however futilely, to influence editors of journals, etc. We all do.

david.starling.macmillan said:

TomS said:

Henry J said:

Did you know They’ve been putting poisonous gases and explosive metals in our table salt? @_@ You can’t even find the stuff without those in it anymore!

Better living through chemistry!

And copious quantities of DHMO (dihydrogen monoxide) in our schoolroom drinking fountains! I've seen the headlines about such-and-such, which is an ingredient in a poison, in something-or-other. Maybe there was a serious problem, but the explanation is worthless.

Caffeine is a pesticide! No, it actually is a pesticide. Tea and cocoa and coffee plants evolved caffeine because it kills bugs. By messing with their adrenal systems, IIRC. Which is the reason why it is actually good for us. The next time someone calls something "toxic", ask "toxic to what?"

harold said:

harold said:

Carl Drews said: How about if I publish a paper in a scientific journal presenting evidence that humans are contributing to climate change. Suppose Anthony Watts gets all mad about the paper, trash-talks the journal editors and peer reviewers, and urges his followers to complain about the paper and get it retracted. Would that action constitute an attempt at censorship by Anthony Watts?

Of course not, and anyone who said it would was mistaking your comment as a pro-creationist comment and reacting instinctively. That's freedom of expression by Anthony Watts. As long as he doesn't cross over into libel, he has a 100% right to complain about anything he wants, to try, however futilely, to influence editors of journals, etc. We all do.

I do concur with others that this is a false equivalence to the Springer situation. Springer has an implied commitment to publishing peer reviewed scientific material. If they were, in essence, warned by loyal customers that they should do some double checking before publishing something, to avoid damaging their reputation, that's all free expression on everybody's part. Clearly somewhere, somehow, someone with expertise, in or outside of the company, drew attention to the low quality of the creationist material, and Springer freely and legally decided that it didn't meet their standards. What you describe is also free expression, but a reverse situation, in which valid experts have decided to accept a high quality article for publication, and known anti-science activists object. However, in both situations, it's all free expression, and no censorship in any meaningful sense is taking place in either scenario. Putting aside things like libel or harassment, everyone is free to complain about what journals choose to publish.

harold said: Springer has an implied commitment to publishing peer reviewed scientific material. If they were, in essence, warned by loyal customers that they should do some double checking before publishing something, to avoid damaging their reputation, that's all free expression on everybody's part. Clearly somewhere, somehow, someone with expertise, in or outside of the company, drew attention to the low quality of the creationist material, and Springer freely and legally decided that it didn't meet their standards.

Putting aside things like libel or harassment, everyone is free to complain about what journals choose to publish.

harold said:

david.starling.macmillan said:

TomS said:

Henry J said:

Did you know They’ve been putting poisonous gases and explosive metals in our table salt? @_@ You can’t even find the stuff without those in it anymore!

Better living through chemistry!

And copious quantities of DHMO (dihydrogen monoxide) in our schoolroom drinking fountains! I've seen the headlines about such-and-such, which is an ingredient in a poison, in something-or-other. Maybe there was a serious problem, but the explanation is worthless.

Caffeine is a pesticide! No, it actually is a pesticide. Tea and cocoa and coffee plants evolved caffeine because it kills bugs. By messing with their adrenal systems, IIRC. Which is the reason why it is actually good for us. The next time someone calls something "toxic", ask "toxic to what?"

And some other plants as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yerba_mate This seems to be an example of parallel evolution. Although I am no botanist, I'll stick my neck out and guess that maybe some fairly common plant biochemical pathway is relatively easily modified to generate xanthines.

How long has caffeine been around in nature? AFAIK, It wouldn't have to be recent.

Also see how many plant species are closer related to some parts of that list than they are to others, but yet have apparently been decaffeinated.

A substantial number of insecticides act neurologically, in both insects and humans. (Not an example of parallel evolution, in general, but of similarities between human and insect neurology due to common descent.)

decomposes Xanthine (pronounced /ˈzænθiːn/ or /ˈzænθaɪn/), (3,7-dihydro-purine-2,6-dione), is a purine base found in most human body tissues and fluids and in other organisms. A number of mild stimulants are derived from xanthine, including caffeine and theobromine.[1] Xanthine is a product on the pathway of purine degradation. It is created from guanine by guanine deaminase. It is created from hypoxanthine by xanthine oxidoreductase.

The deduced polypeptides of these enzymes have more than 82% similarity and phylogenetic analysis indicates that they are more closely related to C-methyltransferases, including those for jasmonic acid, salicylic acid and benzoic acid, than to other N-methyltransferases. This suggests that coffee N-methyltransferases constitute a distinct sub-group within the plant methyltransferase family. Their cellular localization was determined by the green-fluorescence protein fusion method and this showed that all three enzymes are localized in the cytoplasm.

david.starling.macmillan said:

harold said:

david.starling.macmillan said:

TomS said:

Henry J said:

Did you know They’ve been putting poisonous gases and explosive metals in our table salt? @_@ You can’t even find the stuff without those in it anymore!

Better living through chemistry!

And copious quantities of DHMO (dihydrogen monoxide) in our schoolroom drinking fountains! I've seen the headlines about such-and-such, which is an ingredient in a poison, in something-or-other. Maybe there was a serious problem, but the explanation is worthless.

Caffeine is a pesticide! No, it actually is a pesticide. Tea and cocoa and coffee plants evolved caffeine because it kills bugs. By messing with their adrenal systems, IIRC. Which is the reason why it is actually good for us. The next time someone calls something "toxic", ask "toxic to what?"

And some other plants as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yerba_mate This seems to be an example of parallel evolution. Although I am no botanist, I'll stick my neck out and guess that maybe some fairly common plant biochemical pathway is relatively easily modified to generate xanthines.

Ooh, a test for common design! Yerba mate, tea, cocoa, and coffee plants all produce caffeine. AFAIK, they do not have a recent common ancestor. Common design would predict that these plants were all created with xanthines and thus would have the same exact gene pathway modifications to generate xanthines. Common descent would predict that these plants each took a different pathway to modify the same common genes to generate xanthines. Anyone want to break out DNA sequences and see which one is correct?

TomS said:

david.starling.macmillan said:

harold said:

david.starling.macmillan said:

TomS said:

Henry J said:

Did you know They’ve been putting poisonous gases and explosive metals in our table salt? @_@ You can’t even find the stuff without those in it anymore!

Better living through chemistry!

And copious quantities of DHMO (dihydrogen monoxide) in our schoolroom drinking fountains! I've seen the headlines about such-and-such, which is an ingredient in a poison, in something-or-other. Maybe there was a serious problem, but the explanation is worthless.

Caffeine is a pesticide! No, it actually is a pesticide. Tea and cocoa and coffee plants evolved caffeine because it kills bugs. By messing with their adrenal systems, IIRC. Which is the reason why it is actually good for us. The next time someone calls something "toxic", ask "toxic to what?"

And some other plants as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yerba_mate This seems to be an example of parallel evolution. Although I am no botanist, I'll stick my neck out and guess that maybe some fairly common plant biochemical pathway is relatively easily modified to generate xanthines.

Ooh, a test for common design! Yerba mate, tea, cocoa, and coffee plants all produce caffeine. AFAIK, they do not have a recent common ancestor. Common design would predict that these plants were all created with xanthines and thus would have the same exact gene pathway modifications to generate xanthines. Common descent would predict that these plants each took a different pathway to modify the same common genes to generate xanthines. Anyone want to break out DNA sequences and see which one is correct?

If these are similar, that is due to common design. I they are different, that is due to separate creation.

david.starling.macmillan said:

TomS said:

david.starling.macmillan said:

harold said:

david.starling.macmillan said:

TomS said:

Henry J said:

Did you know They’ve been putting poisonous gases and explosive metals in our table salt? @_@ You can’t even find the stuff without those in it anymore!

Better living through chemistry!

And copious quantities of DHMO (dihydrogen monoxide) in our schoolroom drinking fountains! I've seen the headlines about such-and-such, which is an ingredient in a poison, in something-or-other. Maybe there was a serious problem, but the explanation is worthless.

Caffeine is a pesticide! No, it actually is a pesticide. Tea and cocoa and coffee plants evolved caffeine because it kills bugs. By messing with their adrenal systems, IIRC. Which is the reason why it is actually good for us. The next time someone calls something "toxic", ask "toxic to what?"

And some other plants as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yerba_mate This seems to be an example of parallel evolution. Although I am no botanist, I'll stick my neck out and guess that maybe some fairly common plant biochemical pathway is relatively easily modified to generate xanthines.

Ooh, a test for common design! Yerba mate, tea, cocoa, and coffee plants all produce caffeine. AFAIK, they do not have a recent common ancestor. Common design would predict that these plants were all created with xanthines and thus would have the same exact gene pathway modifications to generate xanthines. Common descent would predict that these plants each took a different pathway to modify the same common genes to generate xanthines. Anyone want to break out DNA sequences and see which one is correct?

If these are similar, that is due to common design. I they are different, that is due to separate creation.

Oh, stupid me. How did I not recognize this? Why even do the analysis at all -- clearly, ye coffee declareth ye glorie of God, and ye caffeine sheweth hys haundiwerk.

harold said: I can easily say that the FSM actually did answer the prayers and cure the patients. But the FSM also planted a permanent illusion in the minds of the scientists, of not seeing the patients improve. The FSM will manipulate time and space going forward, so that the scientists will always think that the prayer had no impact. The FSM will also subtly influence the unconscious of the patients and their families, so that they never publicly contradict the findings. It's easy when you're omnipotent.

Instead of evolution occurring, some omnipotent deity used magical “common design” to “make it look exactly as if” evolution had occurred. Anyone can always say this, and no-one can “disprove” it. The obvious thing we can say is, why is that a better explanation than just accepting that the evidence is accurate?

harold said: If we declare that art, once created, becomes the "property of humanity", without establishing a mechanism by which "humanity" will pay artists for their work (and decide which ones to pay), that's unfair.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/source-coffee%E2%80%99s-kick-found-its-genetic-code

Yes, indeed, coffee did it in its own way.

harold said:

harold said:

Carl Drews said: How about if I publish a paper in a scientific journal presenting evidence that humans are contributing to climate change. Suppose Anthony Watts gets all mad about the paper, trash-talks the journal editors and peer reviewers, and urges his followers to complain about the paper and get it retracted. Would that action constitute an attempt at censorship by Anthony Watts?

Of course not, and anyone who said it would was mistaking your comment as a pro-creationist comment and reacting instinctively. That's freedom of expression by Anthony Watts. As long as he doesn't cross over into libel, he has a 100% right to complain about anything he wants, to try, however futilely, to influence editors of journals, etc. We all do.

I do concur with others that this is a false equivalence to the Springer situation. Springer has an implied commitment to publishing peer reviewed scientific material. If they were, in essence, warned by loyal customers that they should do some double checking before publishing something, to avoid damaging their reputation, that's all free expression on everybody's part. Clearly somewhere, somehow, someone with expertise, in or outside of the company, drew attention to the low quality of the creationist material, and Springer freely and legally decided that it didn't meet their standards. What you describe is also free expression, but a reverse situation, in which valid experts have decided to accept a high quality article for publication, and known anti-science activists object. However, in both situations, it's all free expression, and no censorship in any meaningful sense is taking place in either scenario. Putting aside things like libel or harassment, everyone is free to complain about what journals choose to publish.

alicejohn said: Off topic, but this reminds me of a picture I saw about 30 years ago. An artist was standing next to a bonfire of his paintings. The caption stated that the artist was protesting the fact that his country taxed wealth and he could not afford to pay taxes on the paintings he painted and kept.

harold said: If we declare that art, once created, becomes the "property of humanity", without establishing a mechanism by which "humanity" will pay artists for their work (and decide which ones to pay), that's unfair.

Off topic, but this reminds me of a picture I saw about 30 years ago. An artist was standing next to a bonfire of his paintings. The caption stated that the artist was protesting the fact that his country taxed wealth and he could not afford to pay taxes on the paintings he painted and kept.

In fact a artist who claims to want to sell the paintings can write off the paint and canvass, if she itemizes.

The tax situation is different in different countries. There have been situations where the "marginal tax rate" has exceeded 100%, which means that your tax bill increases faster than your income. In the USA one can be taxed on the value of your house and also, sometimes, on stocks and bonds, and I presume that that it happens on other property in other places.

TomS said: The tax situation is different in different countries. There have been situations where the "marginal tax rate" has exceeded 100%, which means that your tax bill increases faster than your income.

In the USA one can be taxed on the value of your house and also, sometimes, on stocks and bonds, and I presume that that it happens on other property in other places.

No, I don't have any documentation for any of what I said. I hope you won't take offense if I say that it is not important enough, and too far off topic, to search for the documentation. I recall - and I am fully aware of the fallibility of memory - paying state income taxes on ownership (not capital gain on sale, but on the value of stocks that I owned) of stocks of companies located outside of my state. (It was a fraction of a percent, and I only owned a small amount, and, perhaps most importantly, I did not have enough money to find a way not to pay it.) I also recall that one of the Nordic countries had a marginal tax rate on high incomes greater than 100%, and I suppose that one of our far-flung readers can inform us.

TomS said: No, I don't have any documentation for any of what I said. I hope you won't take offense if I say that it is not important enough, and too far off topic, to search for the documentation. I recall - and I am fully aware of the fallibility of memory - paying state income taxes on ownership (not capital gain on sale, but on the value of stocks that I owned) of stocks of companies located outside of my state. (It was a fraction of a percent, and I only owned a small amount, and, perhaps most importantly, I did not have enough money to find a way not to pay it.) I also recall that one of the Nordic countries had a marginal tax rate on high incomes greater than 100%, and I suppose that one of our far-flung readers can inform us.

Lest anyone is interested in following this off topic discussion elsewhere, here's a place to start. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_tax