More anti-evolution rumblings in the UK

| 119 Comments

Via Dean and Science, Just Science comes this story about a new group trying to get ID into class in the UK:

Parents are being encouraged to challenge their children’s science teachers over what they are explaining as the origins of life.

An organisation called Truth in Science has also sent resource packs to all UK secondary school science departments.

It promotes the idea of intelligent design - that there was an intelligence behind the creation of the universe.

On their website, Truth in Science notes that they’ve already sent “ a mailing to all Secondary School and College Heads of Science in the United Kingdom.” Busy little bees, aren’t they?

And boy, doesn’t this sound familiar:

It quotes the Edexcel examining board as explaining that students “need to adopt a critical, questioning frame of mind, going ‘behind the scenes’ to understand the workings of science and how it impacts on society and their lives”.

The Truth in Science website says: “We consider that it is time for students to be permitted to adopt a critical approach to Darwinism in science lessons.”

Something sure has evolved: the anti-evolution catchphrase. “Critical analysis” and its kin are obviously being positively selected!

(Continued at Aetiology).

119 Comments

“Critical analysis”

Help help! I’m drowning in irony!!!!

Ahhhhhhh!

Thanks for getting this up so quickly Tara - any suggestions gratefully received American chums :)

Lots of detailed background on the organisation on the ‘Blackshadow of Creationism’ site:

http://www.blackshadow.me.uk/index.[…]uthInScience

The challenge, at least in the US but maybe in the UK as well, is to design code phrases that will make it stone obvious to religious congregations that we’re importing Jeezus into science classes, while sumultaneously disguising this intent from courts so thoroughly that judges won’t be able to notice. The good news is that judges tend to be a bit more insightful and perspicacious than congregations. The bad news is, judges tend to assume words have traditional meanings, while congregations understand that words mean whatever they SAY words mean.

I think that “critical” must be meant in the vulgar sense, that is, they mean simply to bad-mouth evolution. Anyway, I’ve never seen anything from them that rose above mere put-downs of good science (the real critical analyses of shaky evolutionary ideas never come from IDists, as far as I can tell).

Glen D http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

this must be some form of convergent evolution, but haven’t you noticed that most conspiracy, pseudo science groups always have the word “Truth” in their title?

Type in “truth” and “organization” in google, and you can see what I mean.

The fact that it’s Truth - with a capital ‘T’ kinda gives the game away?

When you say “sounds familiar”, I assume you are thinking of this Tara:

“evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. The material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”

That, and Ohio’s “critical analysis” language, and similar phrases elsewhere.

Thanks from yet another SJS member for putting this up Tara. Here’s a link to the main Science Just Science site. We encourage all concerned UK residents to sign our petition, it only takes a few seconds :)

bah… I thought, with such “bright” folks as dawkins, the brits were all safe from ID (chuckle)

I can’t stop thinking that this whole battle would be so much easier if “theory” didn’t have two meanings.

Is it any easier in other languages, where “Theory” of Evolution can’t be conflated with “good guess”?

stevaroni:

Is it any easier in other languages, where “Theory” of Evolution can’t be conflated with “good guess”?

Isn’t it being conflated with “wrong guess” instead?

Enjoy your vowels while you still can, lxndr, you blvtng trll.

Chuckle.

I mean the “theory” part.

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard “It’s only a theory”, where the word theory is used implied to mean nothing more than “good guess”.

I mean, if you have this guy Dawkins constantly saying that evolution somehow implies there is no god, you are asking for the religious people to take it against evolution. Then this bloke blames everyone not joining the war againts religion, of being either religious or cowering in the closet. Dawkins and friends do not have the capacity to see it any other way than in this simplistic fashion. Of course, there are us atheists who think science will never prove or disporove god. We don’t give religion that much credit nor do we blame it for all our problems. Neither do we think world peace and well being will just flow over the brim by praising science and reason. But to Dawkins, I guess we must just have some physiological problem of unreason. Yeah, there you go. A perfectly simplistic explanation. Dawkins style. Dawkins lives from perpetuating a XIXth century debate, with no innovations. In the end, it is STILL is ALL about religion, isn’t it. Which is quite sad. I guess the fact that anglo culture comes from a deeply religious and purist background has nothing to do with this, huh? Sure,some say it only continues to bes o in the US…but could it be, my british buddies, that it si still there, sleeping under the surface, ready to make a comeback?

The first thing I would recommend about critically analyzing “Darwinism” is to pay close attention to how often, and misleadingly, the word is used by anti-evolution activists who know that there is no alternate theory, but want students to think there is.

Darwinism is the idea that evolution is mainly directed by natural selection. This propostion has been for a long time debated within proper scientific discussion. What is not debated is common descent, of course. Interestingly, those academics most bent on attacking relgion using evolution as a banner, also happen to be “ultradarwinians” ( term used by Gould, Lewontin) such as the british Dennet and Dawkins, and the american? EO Wilson. Now of course, this feeds the very grave confusion of “criticizing darwinisn” with “criticizing evolution” , which has ben denounced several times here at the PT…only to see the same confusion pop up over and over again (as is the case of Frank J here who thinks there is no alternative to darwinism).

I guess the fact that anglo culture comes from a deeply religious and purist background has nothing to do with this, huh? Sure,some say it only continues to bes o in the US…but could it be, my british buddies, that it si still there, sleeping under the surface, ready to make a comeback?

You mean like a harmful recessive gene waiting to be expressed? Nah, I think (as do Dawkins and others) that it’s high time our species evolved beyond that nonsense.

Guys saying that it is time for humanity to step into the enlightened age of reason peace and progress brought on by science alone have existed since the XIXth century… science has actually made a lot of progress since then…yet the wonderful times of peace and enlightment, alas, has not yet arrived. Just saying “science should do it” seems to be not helping very much… isn’t it (chuckle) I myself believe that before stepping inot such enlightmente, some social and economic problems should be dealt with… rather than just sit and wait for science to just solve it all.…

“I guess the fact that anglo culture comes from a deeply religious and purist background has nothing to do with this, huh? Sure,some say it only continues to bes o in the US…but could it be, my british buddies, that it si still there, sleeping under the surface, ready to make a comeback?”

No, I dont think so. Religious expression in the UK has varied hugely over the past 20 generations, I see no signs that it is experiencing a rennaisance. Sure, the more virulent strains make a lot of noise, but on the whole there is little to no danger.

The [insert expletive here] have got a special section on Scotland! This means war!

And they’ve our good friend Prof Macintosh on board: “Andy McIntosh Professor of Thermodynamics and Combustion Theory at the University of Leeds and author of over 100 research papers. Prof. McIntosh’s research includes biomimetics where natural mechanisms are studied with a view to using them for engineering applications. He has written numerous articles concerning the debate over Origins.”

He’s the prof of thermodynamics who is a creationist. Note how they are talking up his credentials and work etc.

Clastito, let’s get past this boring old Dawkins==>evolution==>atheism canard and get down to the real issue:

Are you pro-gerbil* or not? Be a man, take a stand!**

____________ *Spread the word: End A War! Save A Gerbil!

**Bumperstickers available shortly.

Have you read McIntosh’s twisting of geology in his “Genesis for Today”, it verges on the dishonest

science has actually made a lot of progress since then…yet the wonderful times of peace and enlightment, alas, has not yet arrived.

We’re all alive, aren’t we? Do you have any idea what the child mortality rates were back then? Do you have any idea how young people died? Do you have any idea of the conditions that people had to work in, lacking as they did modern machinery?

Ingrate!

Just…be warned

Do you have any idea what the child mortality IS in the thrid world? Do you have any idea how many young people die? Do you have any idea of the conditions that people have to work in, modern machinery or not? You burgeois bubbleboy… can‘t trust people who have never had a dcent revolution or killed a despot monarch, I’m telling ya (hehehe)

Just…be warned

Oh, we’re warned all right. The lunatics are trying to take over the asylum again. Luckily, the vast majority of UK Christians actually have a clue (nods to Ekklesia), so the creationists are going to find it an uphill struggle at best. They’ve probably got the funding to climb that hill, but it’ll take time - so much for the element of surprise.

Do you have any idea what the child mortality IS in the thrid world? Do you have any idea how many young people die? Do you have any idea of the conditions that people have to work in, (with plenty of modern machinery, by the way) You burgeois bubbleboy… can’t trust people who have never had a decent social revolution (hehehe) The modern machinery part is specially funny.…like if labor abuse had been eliminated by industralization… Most of the beter conditiosn stemmed from social movements, You see the bosse were not very much into the theory of being nice to the workers as you may think

Seems to me all UK chrsitians need is a bit more of US propaganda to feel like maybe hopping onto “the new science” hehehe But hey, also other european countries, if that makes you feel better. Except France , of course (OUCH!!! hahaha)

But whatever it was, you seem to have forgotten, or mislaid. Or perhaps your intellectual reach just exceeded your neuronal grasp.

His message seems to me to be rather a simple one —- “he’s smarter than all of us, so there”.

Yeah rev, you STARTED by calling me “incoherent nutter” but I didn’t care a bit.. it was predictable. So now, be a man and don’t whine if you indirectly inferr my doubts about your degree of mental sophistication. At least I am capable of containing major farts so I am entitled to believe in some kind of superiority hahaha And no, having a country with parties from left traditions that actually CAN get some power, does not mean having a bunch of Lenins. I guess it must be difficult for you to trascend a lifetime of right wing cartoons drilled into your brain… coming from a country with only two right-wing parties, where “socialism” alone is some kind of dirty word. Actually at this point all you have is republicans, and republican wannabes (democrats).

Yeah rev, you STARTED

Waaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!

I guess it must be difficult for you to trascend a lifetime of right wing cartoons drilled into your brain…

You have no idea how funny that is.

Apparently reading comprehension is not one of your strengths.

Yeah rev, you STARTED by calling me “incoherent nutter” but I didn’t care a bit.. it was predictable.

[giggle] You know Rev, he does have a point there, you’re response WAS predictable. I mean anyone could predict that someone that blithers away for several page-long posts without ever developing a coherent point is going to get called an “incoherent nutter”.

Yup, back to Insult School for you.

Oh, the shame! I said “you’re” instead of “your”! I plead pre- morning coffee disfunction as my excuse…

For those of you still remaining in this discussion who have an interest in the original subject of the thread, here are 3 very relevant letters in today’s Times: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspa[…]5220,00.html

For those of you still remaining in this discussion who have an interest in the original subject of the thread, here are 3 very relevant letters in today’s Times: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspa[…]5220,00.html

“No one-liners from me. Sorry.”

Aw, why not? You could at least TRY to be entertaining. But right now you’re making Heywood sound intelligent. Ok, you’re not a creationist but you got a problem with Dawkins and his ‘scientism’. What are you, a disgruntled member of greenpeace or something? They chuck you out? If you got a problem with Dawkins, then go take it up with him. You got a problem with ‘Darwinism’, well since most people here are pro-evolution well that’s obviously not gonna make you happy is it? So you seem to be wasting your time. And everyone else’s since you’re not making much sense.

Rebel without a cause.

oh goodie,i got its attention.

Hey, I want some that prove he is NOT part of the problem. I understand that proving a negative is quite hard to do.

ACtually, I’m looking for evidence of these general cultural conditions you rabbit on about. Sure, creationism is still around, but I have yet to find out the origins of “Darwinism” in capitalism. Care to explain?

You do realise that I was joking about killing Dawkins, right? BEcause so far, you havnt come up with any solutions yourself- I was simply suggesting in an oblique manner that providing solutions to a problem that you see would be helpful.

A letter in the times directly attacking “truthiness in science” will probably draw some fire. It will be interesting to see how much. If they themselve monitor the media, I think we can expect a response from one of the academic blokes with a PhD and stuff, saying how scientific their critiscisms are, and how important debate is.

Callisto Said “And no, having a country with parties from left traditions that actually CAN get some power, does not mean having a bunch of Lenins.”

I’m afraid to ask but what country are you from

I have yet to find out the origins of “Darwinism” in capitalism. Care to explain?

It goes something like this (as I heard it at a Socialist Scholars Conference back a few years ago):

Capitalism, particularly in the Victorian age, was seen as dog-eat-dog competition, in which the strong survived and the weak were eaten.

Darwin simply applied that reasoning to the biological world.

Darwin himself was the son of a wealthy Victorian doctor, and married into the wealthy industrialist Wedgewood family, so he (consciously or unconsciously) internalized the capitalist attitude and applied it to what he saw around him.

Hence, the theory of evolution.

That idea is not totally nutty – scientists are, after all, human, and are part of the very same human societites that the rest of us are, and they are influenced by social attitudes just as much as anyone else is. And indeed ideology, personal philosophy and social attitudes do influence the acceptance or popularity of scientific ideas – a good example being human evolution, where, during the industrial 20’s, “Man the Toolmaker” ruled supreme, switching to “Man the Hunter” after WW2 and the Cold War of the 50’s, switching again to “Man the Social Animal” after the 60’s, and switching again to “Sociobiology” during the rise of the Religious Right in the 80’s.

The scientific method, however, along with the peer-review systems, specifically eliminates ideological slants from science by allowing all and sundry to have at them, thus cancelling them all out. Hence, while there may be times and places where ideology rules science, in the end things always work themselves out.

As noted before, moreover, to attribute “science” to social ideology, is to confuse “science” with “the social uses to which science is put”. Nuclear physics, for instance, is science, and the mass of a neutron is the same for a capitalist as it is for a communist. The decision whether to use nuclear physics to build nuclear weapons, though, is a social use of science.

Our misguided friend here seems to be equating the two.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank Wrote:

It goes something like this (as I heard it at a Socialist Scholars Conference back a few years ago):

Capitalism, particularly in the Victorian age, was seen as dog-eat-dog competition, in which the strong survived and the weak were eaten.

Darwin simply applied that reasoning to the biological world.

An argument easily torpedoed simply by reading The Descent of Man–that’s not how Darwin envisioned evolution. He argued evolutionary explanations for a ton of non-directly-competitive behaviors: altruism, cooperation, winning mates by “charm” rather than by dragging them off by their hair while fighting off rivals. More than any other prominent biologist of his day, I think, Darwin argued that cooperative behavior was common in the animal world, and that our social and moral impulses were inherited from non-human ancestors. He was certainly more extreme in that area than Huxley or Wallace.

So many people talk about Darwin, and how he was an atheist/Christian/communist/capitalist/misogynist/Nazi; so few actually read him.…

Darwin himself was the son of a wealthy Victorian doctor, and married into the wealthy industrialist Wedgewood family, so he (consciously or unconsciously) internalized the capitalist attitude and applied it to what he saw around him.

Actually he was already a Wedgwood on his mother’s side; the families had been linked by marriage and business ties for the last two generations.

Jeez what a bunch of “fans”… I guess I cannot disappoint them with no answer now. It’s embarassing how you continue to confirm what I said… as I literally said: “you cannot conceive other than two possibilities, either you are into a ridiculous ultrapositivist scientism “a la dawkins”, where people who disagree with you have some “physiological problem of unreason”, OR you are some kind of religious looney (as you constantly strive to fit me into) that easily embraces creationism” The brutish ignorance of dawkobot amateurs makes me cry bitter tears of rage…

Darth Robo, explain to us why evolution= Dawkins’s ultradarwinism. PLEASE. (as I pointed out above,utradarwinism a la dawkins, with its gaping defects, when defended in the fashion of scientism as “unquestionable truth” and moreover conflated with evolution, ultimately gives tools to creationists to reject common descent) Rev, do your homework you lazy preacher. You make a strawman of the capitalist connection with arguments so bad I have NEVER heard of, nor would I take them seriously. The connection is MUCH more direct, historical and unquestionable. Who was Malthus? Who was Adam Smith? Laissez-faire competition leading to progress? Ever heard of superproductivity therefore competition and progress? Pure capitalism. It’s kind of sad to see how these vieww, though now ttally dated within economical theory, still are upheld as the purest natural truth by amateur peddlers of evolution. Once again,all, don’t be IGNORANT. Darwinism is not evolution. Lamarck, Buffon, etc had made the notion of eolution and common descent well known in academic circles quite before “the origin”. Darwin just slapped a progressist notion of natural selection onto it to explain the “perfection of adaptation” problem, diectky inspired in the theories of the economists that fathered capitalism. You suffer from great cuktura bias to elevate Darwini to divinity… a good job he didi do in demosntarting common descent. he was gifted naturaliust biologist in genral. But he was wrong about his notions on how natural selection worked, and its supposed hegemonical role in evolution. And this is, in fact, the essence of “darwinism”: not so common descent.

Darwin simply applied that reasoning to the biological world.

Darwin himself was the son of a wealthy Victorian doctor, and married into the wealthy industrialist Wedgewood family, so he (consciously or unconsciously) internalized the capitalist attitude and applied it to what he saw around him.

Hence, the theory of evolution.

The case with Darwin is likely impossible to resolve. As an elite in a Victorian/Newtonian/Lyellianintellectual milieu he was placed in a great position to come up with his version of evolution, the one that works.

But his field work was very important to the production of his ideas, and so was Malthus. As well, the causal mechanisms of both the industrial economy and the agricultural economy lent a useful scientific point of view to Darwin and to his supporters.

The bourgeois freedom of Victorian England was, no doubt, more conducive to excellence in theorizing evolutionary theory than was German despotism and Romanticism. But if so, this was also because Victorian England knew a great deal about how to produce working machines and models, whatever its effects on poor Oliver Twist.

No matter how artificial Social Darwinism (like feudalism and monarchism) is, it nevertheless provided a somewhat helpful analogy with what actually does take place during evolution. In that sense, so what if Social Darwinism helped to give rise to modern evolutionary ideas?

The dark side is that it appears as if the acceptance of Darwinism among the elites (no matter how warped Darwinism was by them) almost certainly is due in part to the fact that Darwinism could be used to “justify” their oppression. Then again, what of that? Religion, theories of lawful succession and hereditary power, and later, claims to rule for “the people” in socialist utopias, have all been so used. The only thing that sets “Darwinism” apart from these as a “category” is that it is scientifically justified.

The scientific method, however, along with the peer-review systems, specifically eliminates ideological slants from science by allowing all and sundry to have at them, thus cancelling them all out. Hence, while there may be times and places where ideology rules science, in the end things always work themselves out.

I would suspect that the scientific method never eliminates ideological slants, and that ideology always affects science. Just ask E.O. Wilson about how well his evolutionary ideas were accepted at first (sure, he won out, but it is possible that “too capitalist” a view of biology exists in some quarters today, particularly in some (but not all) “evolutionary psychology” claims).

What is important is that the empirically justifiable claims are what win out in science. Soviet biologists and Marxist Stephen J. Gould (however “Marxist” someone educated like he was really can be) ended up being undisputed “Darwinians”, not because they liked the implications of “Darwinism”, but because it is all that works–the only theory that can be used to breed better crops for the hungry masses. Socialist or not, one has to obey the dictates of nature if one wishes to improve on its productive capacities for human society.

Importantly, we now understand fairly well how social animals without any essential “Social Darwinist” natures, such as ourselves, may evolve via “Darwinistic” selective pressures. When you have a theory that incorporates virtually all of the data, and even explains reasonably well how cooperation evolves, you know that you have a theory with impressive explanatory powers.

Had Darwinism remained forever tied to “red in tooth and claw” conceptions, it would have eventually failed. Darwinism was fairly heavily associated with Victorian ideas in its inception, but it has a great deal of independence at present. If this, too, were not the case, RM + NS + would eventually fail, for an empirical concept must be tied to the evidence and not to capitalism or atheism, if it is to be of practical and theoretical value.

Today one could argue socialism at least as well from evolutionary theory as one could argue for capitalism from evolutionary theory. Perhaps socialism even has the upper hand from anthropology and primate evolution, since the “big man” (king, president, etc.) appears to be a cultural adaptation, not a biological imperative. I only say “perhaps”, though, because evolution really tells us nothing of “ought”, but only about origins, and successful oppression may be every bit as evolutionarily sound as is successful cooperation.

The real problem with Clastito is that he knows so very little about evolutionary theory:

“Perfect adaptation” was once considered the most clear signal of the intelligence of god…which darwin explained alternatively, through the perfecting and increase of adaptation by the means of natural selection.

Aside from the mangled English, anyone here ever hear of Darwin’s explanation of “perfecting” species? No? Quite the opposite, of course, as Darwin explained what ID cannot (even granted its usual unsupported assumptions), which is why perfection is lacking in the world, and lacking in a particularly derivative pattern.

Likewise, he doesn’t understand that today’s “Darwinism” is no bolster for capitalism, even if it is not infrequently used as such. Like the IDiots, though, he musters his moralistic arguments to “argue” against the model based upon facts.

But if Kruschev and his scientists knew (from their experiences of failure) better than to deny “Darwinism”, why should anyone else deny it? Find a way to fit your theologies and ideologies in with science, and be done with denying reality.

Glen D http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Now, now, Mr. Glen of the “electric consciousness” (chuckle) Everyone knows that Darwin as a smart, sophisticated dude. He definitely payed attention to all the major issues, such as the non adaptive traits, historical constraints, and such. But one cloud in the sky does not make a raisntorm, Glen. Look at the general, majoritarian trends of Darwins’s work (as Gould was constantly begging us, to properly judge historical figures) Inasmuch as his main innovation, his new line of thinking, was the idea that natural selection was the main evolutionary force involved in the improvement of adaptaions, darwin emphasized it quite a lot, and defended it always as being, in the end, “the main thing”. This is true darwinism, and the source of the many progressist notions that darwin repeatedly came up with. And, as I sai above, it was capitalism that bolstered darwinism. and as I also pointed out above, I do not hold that against darwinism. darwinism can be questioned on purely scientific grounds… specially regarding what is the actual evidence for selection “molding” evolution by accumulation of micromutations. But you would not know about that. Read Orr, “the genetic theory of adaptation” in nature reviews in genetics

Rev, you strike me as a bit… absent-minded. I made the distinction between science, and social uses to which science is put, from the beggining. it is fundamnetla to my argument that the development of science alone, does not imply the effortless advent of an era of peace. This is the thinly veiled promise of naïve scientism a la dawkins implies wehn the think that religon produces the evild of the world and that things would spontaneously be so much better if we just were more “rational” and “scientific”.

Dude, we get the idea YOU don’t like evolution OR Dawkins. Not everyone here necessarily sgrees with Dawkins on stuff either. But back on topic, there’s still one question I asked that you’ve not answered to any kind of satisfaction (not that the rest of your posts have been coherent):

Do you think it is a good idea to teach religious alternatives to science in school classrooms? You obviously don’t like the ‘ideology’ that ‘Darwinism’ allegedly preaches, but wouldn’t teaching religion in a science class be simply swapping one for another?

At least evolution can be tested. You can’t test ‘POOF!’ (special creation).

“you strike me as a bit… absent-minded.”

Hmmm…

“fundamnetla”

“wehn the think that religon”

“evild”

You know, what’s even worse is, a creationist sits opposite me in work as I type this. Every now and then he get’s curious as to what I’m up to and I have to say “Oh, it’s nothing. Just a boring old science website.” :)

OK, Darth Robo is idiot Number 5 that thinks I’m a creationist. My predictions work invariably. Expect more idiots like this to drop in.

Now, now, Mr. Glen of the “electric consciousness” (chuckle)

Chuckle where you don’t understand, yes. You must chuckle a lot.

Everyone knows that Darwin as a smart, sophisticated dude. He definitely payed attention to all the major issues, such as the non adaptive traits, historical constraints, and such. But one cloud in the sky does not make a raisntorm, Glen.

Can you make any sense at all? I don’t just mean that you mangle English, I mean that you ramble on about meaningless nonsense and then think you’ve made a point.

You falsely portrayed Darwin as explaining “perfection”, in complete contradistinction to what he really did. Meaning that you’re just making a lot of noise here, and are unwilling to admit that you’re an ignorant slob in need of much education.

Look at the general, majoritarian trends of Darwins’s work (as Gould was constantly begging us, to properly judge historical figures)

There were no “majoritarian” trends in his book. Darwin was, in fact, rather comfortable in his upper class stratum, only making the usual pious noises that the overclass does about “helping” others.

Now I do suspect that you were referring to something else, indeed, and managed again to mangle your point. But I don’t really care, since you have made little sense in any area so far, most notably in the area of science.

Inasmuch as his main innovation, his new line of thinking, was the idea that natural selection was the main evolutionary force involved in the improvement of adaptaions, darwin emphasized it quite a lot, and defended it always as being, in the end, “the main thing”.

Were you unable to comprehend the fact that I noted that he was correct in that? Can you read no better than you write?

This is true darwinism, and the source of the many progressist notions that darwin repeatedly came up with.

Social Darwinism isn’t “progressive”, if that is what you’re trying to say. If not, try to learn to communicate your thoughts coherently.

Beyond that, I pointed out that “Darwinism” today can support socialism about as well as capitalism, perhaps better. Deal with that, instead of repeating your garbled claims.

And, as I sai above, it was capitalism that bolstered darwinism. and as I also pointed out above, I do not hold that against darwinism.

Then why bring it up? What is your point? Can you think no more coherently than you read and you write?

darwinism can be questioned on purely scientific grounds…

Theoretically this is true. Why don’t you do so, if you have anything intelligent to write?

specially regarding what is the actual evidence for selection “molding” evolution by accumulation of micromutations. But you would not know about that.

OK, you’re a flat-out lying sack of. Of course I know about that, you’re the ignorant stupid thing on this forum.

Learn about the evidence in favor of evolution, and tell us how it differs from what is expected from RM + NS +. And learn some proper terminology. “Micromutation” is a meaningless term in this vein of thinking, and as you projected, you yourself do not understand these matters at all, but would rather drone on senselessly in your prejudices.

Read Orr, “the genetic theory of adaptation” in nature reviews in genetics

Read any science, you dim bulb. You answered none of my points, but simply wrote incoherently the same meaningless claptrap that you wrote beforehand. If you’re not a creationist or IDist, you differ from them not at all in intelligence and in learning.

I didn’t even respond to your gibberish, you know, except to note what you do not understand, though I recognize that what I listed was hardly comprehensive. But I know now that you can’t even understand a meaningful response to your idiocies. You are in need of a large amount of education, versus the tiny-minded propaganda that infests the cavity in your head.

Glen D http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

OK if you’re not a creationist are you the elusive ‘designer’ that noone dare speak of? How many guesses can we have?

From your website, Glen

“Consciousness is comprised of one or more electromagnetic fields, probably mostly electrical in nature”

Sounds very sciencey, but actually is a piece of perfectly useless simplistic crap. That is what scientism is all about, and you provide just the perfect example. Good luck with captain Kirk and everyone at the Glenterprise

I think Clastito is ODing on something. His first post here made a little bit of sense, but he’s been going rapidly downhill since then. Should someone be calling Poison Control?

“A physiological problem of unreason?”

As predictable as creationists

From your website, Glen

“Consciousness is comprised of one or more electromagnetic fields, probably mostly electrical in nature”

Dear stupid little man: I know that you’re no more intelligent or learned than a creationist/IDist, but perhaps you could learn how to be honest. I doubt it, but at least try. What I actually wrote was this:

Overview of consciousness problems, and possible solutions

Problem: Consciousness is characterized by unity (or unities).

Explanation: Consciousness is comprised of one or more electromagnetic fields, probably mostly electrical in nature.

The whole point on that page was to give possible solution, as I wrote in the title. Now “truth machine” had similar problems with the truth over on Ed’s (IIRC) blog, but that’s not surprising, as we have our dolts and cretins as well.

And yes, I argue the case out, somewhat on my site, more in my book. I realize that you are too unintelligent to recognize that you haven’t comprehended what you read, or that I would actually make a case rather than babble and drool as you do, but you could try to learn to not speak where you fully fail to understand.

Sounds very sciencey, but actually is a piece of perfectly useless simplistic crap.

And I’m sure that if you were intelligent and knowing you could and would explain how that was, instead of telling more stupid lies, as is your wont.

That is what scientism is all about, and you provide just the perfect example.

Actually, you provide the perfect example, since you have no knowledge of science, yet you make claims in the name of science to cover up your unintelligence and near-total ignorance.

Good luck with captain Kirk and everyone at the Glenterprise

Thank you for doing the only think you can do, drool and rave about the knowledge that you imagine is in your possession. I would be concerned if you thought that what I had written was correct, as you never manage to understand science, not according to what you have written.

Btw, why are you on this topic? Is it because you can’t understand what I had written in response to you, and are tired of demonstrating that all you can do is babble and drool?

I recognize that all you are capable of doing is attacking intelligence, and wish to promote yourself in the doing. However, you cannot bolster your ego here by making incoherent and ad hominem attacks, for your lack of intelligence is altogether too visible, not only in your lack of science knowledge, but also in your incapacity to read, write, and to think.

Glen D http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Hehehe. I can’t say I did not enjoy that. Evil me. Go sell your snake oil somewhere else, Glen… I would be surprised even if anyone here is buying it.

Babble and drool, cretin, babble and drool.

Glen D http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Ken Ham is upset by clergy in his blog

Anglican priest fights creationists in UK Published October 2nd, 2006 in My Journeys, Current Issues in the World EMail This Post to a Friend ANGLICAN PRIEST FIGHTS CREATIONISTS IN UK

Recently, a group of UK creationists (including well qualified scientists) sent an information packet to schools in the UK in regard to the creation/evolution issue. They have their own website to along with this information (www.truthinscience.org.uk) Sadly, but not surprisingly, a church leader is publicly opposing this group. A report from Ekklesia in the UK states:

It is not possible to predict the outcome of this exercise. Some teachers may have already used the DVDs to scare birds from their vegetable patch. However it will give a way for the increasing number of YEC science teachers to introduce creationism into the classroom, despite the fact that it is scientific nonsense and dependent on the gross misrepresentations of standard science.

It is a concern that the authors are sure that OFSTED will not object to their ideas. The result will be to confuse students, to increase the antagonism of non-believers, and to raise opposition to faith schools of any kind.

Sadly the church, and especially the Church of England, has avoided taking a stand on these issues, possibly to avoid confrontation with more conservative members. Far too often the opponents of this pseudo-scientific nonsense are atheists, who then use this to ridicule faith. Will the church now wake up?

You can read the rest of the report at: www.ekklesia.co.uk

WINNIPEG MINISTRY

By the time you read this blog, I should be on my way to Winnipeg Canada to speak at a conference. Please pray for the effectiveness of the talks. For further information, go to: Winnepeg Conference.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying

Ken

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Tara Smith published on September 29, 2006 10:10 AM.

Tangled Bank #63 was the previous entry in this blog.

The “banning” of Pandas - A final (I hope) update is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter