Wells: “Darwinism is Doomed” because we keep making progress

| 270 Comments

There are days when I simply cannot believe how dishonest the scoundrels at the Discovery Institute can be. This is one of them. I just read an essay by Jonathan Wells that is an appalling piece of anti-scientific propaganda, an extremely squirrely twisting of some science news. It's called "Why Darwinism is doomed", and trust me, if you read it, your opinion of Wells will drop another notch. And here you thought it was already in the gutter!

Continue reading "Wells: “Darwinism is Doomed” because we keep making progress" (on Pharyngula)

270 Comments

Wow, that IS bizarre. Wells apparently didn’t get the gene for brain development but got one for brain atrophy instead.

I recently saw Ann Coulter on television talking to a group of women about her recent book, Godless. She told them that she deliberately tries to annoy liberals. Her comment on the jacket of Wells’ book confirms this.

I suspect that these kinds of comments and articles are for evolutionist baiting. In the past this has been a way for them to get heard. If they make a real scientist mad enough, they get a response. Then the ID/creationist pushers use that to claim there is a controversy. They also use the inevitable exchanges that occur to pad their resumes and look like heroes to their constituents.

What they do to the members of the science community is analogous to repeatedly accusing someone of being a child molester or some other type of vile criminal and then using the person’s denials to argue that their behavior is suspicious and controversial so that society must take precautions. Given their beliefs that people outside their religious circles are evil, they probably feel this behavior is justified.

Is the US even “the most scientifically advanced country” still? By the way, does “Ad Populum” mean anything to this man? Also notice that 3/4 of the American people reject “Darwinism,” but half of those aren’t fundamentalists, which only leaves you with about 37-38 percent who aren’t and don’t accept “Darwinism.” That kinda defeats the appeal to majority opinion. Furthermore the argument doesn’t even consider that, if not for the amazingly proficient fundamentalist propoganda, a good number of more mainstream Christians might not be so doubtful. Not to mention completely not mentioning the other factor, the politicization of science. And that’s if you’re playing by Well’s definitions of “Darwinism,” which I doubt was used in the study since the Creationist version of “Darwinism” is quite decidedly not the same thing as Neo (or even paleo) Darwinian research, or mainstream ideas about evolution today. One wonders how Wells can even make the claim that the American Public isn’t “the ignorant backwoods religious dogmatists that Darwinists make them out to be,” while out of the same breath calling all “Darwinists” (i.e. the entire biological community with a stastically insignificant deviation) the same thing. Then again, Wells is pretty much good for nothing if it’s not making outrageous claims.

Tell it to the judge, Mr Wells.

Oh, wait – you already DID, didn’t you.

How’d that, uh, work out?

Ahh… Jonathan Wells… helping Reverend Moon to complete the failed mission of Jesus Christ (Moon’s words) by protecting traditional American Christianity.

http://www.nndb.com/people/578/000118224/

Hint to the wise:

Part of why a lot of people think Christians are fools is their lack of judgement and discernment when dealing with people on their own “side.” God, to most religious people, is just the name of a football team they root for. Say “God” and “Jesus” enough and you’re rooting for the home team… and for supporters of the home team, the Jesus freaks are willing to look the other way at inconvenient facts like… oh… being a member of a cult run by a tax-evading international criminal who almost perfectly fits the Biblical description of antichrist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Myung_Moon

PZ — The gutter drains into the storm sewer…

Mike Elzinga wrote:

I suspect that these kinds of comments and articles are for evolutionist baiting.

I don’t think so, myself. I it’s they’re meant for “the base,” the theocratic base of the republican party. It ties to something I saw on Andrew Sullivan’s blog: http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/20[…]sm_wa_3.html

A reader writes:

I went to the Family Research Council/Focus on the Family/American Family Association “Values Voters” summit this weekend at the Omni.

It is much, much worse than we know.

The first woman I spoke to (from Erie, PA) railed on about how Chuck Hagel is a flaming liberal and John McCain should be tried for treason. I thought that maybe I’d run into an isolated crazy. Oh no - it only got worse from there. The level of contempt for anyone who diverges from the Holy Word of W is beyond description. I was sort of ‘undercover’ so I could just let people talk to me, not leading the conversation, not baiting, and it horrified me to hear how many were perfectly comfortable with any form of torture in the name of patriotism if the Commander In Chief gave it the ok.

Meanwhile, in the plenary I got to hear from George Allen on how he’s been done wrong by the media and watched a ballroom of about 1,700 people seem to feel permission to let their hate for The Gays run wild every time a black minister hit the stage. (I have my own copy of the very popular brochure, “The Rape of the Civil Rights Movement: How Sodomites Are Using Civil Rights Rhetoric To Advance Their Preference For Sexual Perversion.”)

There is no room for disagreement, because it is tantamount to evil. Dissent is the same as blasphemy, and everything is approached in orthodox terms. I’ve always been a conservative because I believe that there is such a think as good and evil and that moral relativism is a crazy road on which logic can rarely stick. I believe in limited government and individual liberty. I know I can do things better than any bureaucracy ever will. But what conservatism has become with these people is horrifying. They’d trade liberty for a handshake from W., compassion for power. And they’ve got one amazing plan in place to make sure that future generations have a tighter, more limited, and clearly more hostile worldview. I went there hoping to prove myself wrong about what I thought was happening, but I just couldn’t do it.

Another journalist friend visited as well. He emailed me about it. ‘So you’re saying it’s as bad as I feared,” I asked. “Much, much worse.”

You can’t separate the tactics used by DI from the tactics the republicans use in politics all over the board. They’ve created an alternate reality where media is concerned.

I don’t know. Maybe I’m jaded, but it sounds like the same old crap we’ve been hearing for years. Oh. Wait. It IS the same old crap we’ve been hearing for years. Reminds me of the line from the movie “Support Your Local Sheriff”, in which James Garner replies to a blathering idiot criminal “…hearing you talk like that just makes me feel tired all over…”

Is he trying to claim that since we accept the theory of evolution we’re supposed to have every detail of the evolutionary process down? Since we “claim” that evolution is a fact are we supposed to stop researching it? wow I’m astounded, we search for answers just because we find theories we don’t stop testing those theories and try to strengthen those theories through further studies. What is this guys field of expertise? cause it sure doesn’t include an understanding of the scientific method.

I can’t imagine why anyone is amazed at what Wells has said. Look at it this way: the last paying work he did was “managing some lab” after he earned his Ph.D. (but did not bother to stay around UCLA for his “post-doc” period, though he did refer to himself as a post-doc for the requisite five years).

The man has stated publicly that his purpose in getting a Ph.D. in Embryology was to “destroy Darwinism.”

Why does anyone on the science side still express disgust at his rantings?

The real question is: how do we be proactive in countering the lies and accusations of the DI, the YECs and others?

I fear that belief will trump reason every time. The only answer seems to be in respectful discourse, which seems well-nigh impossible. They hurl insults, science folk hurl insults.

Has anyone ever been convinced by insults?

Or is respectful dialogue the answer? Heck, I dunno. People who are motivated by fear, and not curiosity or a search for truth, do not seem amenable to scientific arguments.

Perhaps the answer, as long-term as it may seem, is better science education. Not only for students, but for adults, as well.

Liz Craig — It seems that among the convinced, pure reason has no sway.

Lenny Flank has quoted the following, which I now borrow, hopefully with his permission: “He convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.”

i listened to a D.I. podcast of Wells reading this article. It’s even more entertaining to hear is real voice say these things.

There is currently discussion in the scienctific literature re. the long-persisting aether question. There are various theories about where all the matter in the universe is hiding out. “Ether Theory”, “Dark Matter Theory”, and so on. You ever hear people getting on stumps and having lawsuits over their particular brand of aether? You hear them passionately asserting that their brand is the only proven brand?

There are various theories of evolution. One is named Darwinism.

There should currently be discussion in the scientific literature re. various possible mechanisms of evolution. What’s gone wrong?

I like the way the article ends and what follows; it gives real insight as to why creationist authors keep it up.

“If I were a Darwinist, I would be afraid. Very afraid.”

Get Wells’ widely popular “Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design”

[It’s even more entertaining to hear is real voice say these things.]

I listened to the podcast too but found it disgusting rather than entertaining.

Philip:

Aether theories were theories of substances filling the universe to explain light transmission. No “aether wind” (anisotropic transmission due to Earths movement in an aether) was found, and when Einstein found that this unwarranted assumption was also unneeded, those theories died. Modern concepts of space is nothing like it, with the exception of a few fringe ideas.

These ideas are discussed, so are evolutionary ideas. See for example Wilkin’s Evolving Thoughts or Myer’s Pharyngula blogs for material on those discussions accessible for laymen. Specied definition, cladistics vs taxonomy, evo-devo, Dawkins’ gene selection is stuff I’ve seen since I started reading.

I guess the question is, what is wrong with your reading?

““If I were a Darwinist, I would be afraid. Very afraid.”

If I were a creationist, I would be stupid. Very stupid.

“Specied definition” - species definition.

There are various theories of evolution. One is named Darwinism.

There should currently be discussion in the scientific literature re. various possible mechanisms of evolution. What’s gone wrong?

nope there is only one extant theory of evolution, all the others have fallen by the wayside as the evidence simply didn’t support them

However, there are still discussion in the literature on a near weekly basis wrt to mechanisms.

you need to understand the difference between the overall theory, and the mechanisms of selection and mutation that are being tested and discussed in the literature.

I’m sure that’s asking far too much of you, though, so why don’t you be a good little troll and go back to your cave?

“There are various theories of evolution. One is named Darwinism.”

The ones that work are “Darwinistic”. Get over it.

“There should currently be discussion in the scientific literature re. various possible mechanisms of evolution.”

There is. Go read.

“What’s gone wrong?”

Evolution produced you.

Quote, “If I were a creationist, I would be stupid. Very stupid”

Like, er, Newton, Boyle, Joule, Linnaeus, Mendel, Cuvier, Richard Owen Faraday, Oersted, Pasteur, Coulomb, Franklin, Edison, Kelvin,(arguably)Einstein, Darwin .… .

I think my question is worth repeating. What’s gone wrong?

Very good dissection, using this particular story as an example, of the utterly stupid idea that every new discovery shows that science is wrong because there was something science didn’t know.

My vote for the stupidist sentence in the article was this one:

It has been almost 30 years since Gould wrote that biology accounts for human nature, yet Darwinists are just now turning up a gene that may have been involved in brain evolution.

Note that “Darwinists” means scientists here - what a slam on the hard working people who are out there trying to figure out how the world works while Wells sits around and writes DI-funded junk for the anti-evolutionist populace.

PBH, I think you’ll have a hard time convincing people that many of those on your list are creationists. Not everyone who believes in God is a creationist. I mean, Einstein? Come on!

“I think my question is worth repeating. What’s gone wrong?”

Same answer. Who said natural selection was perfect? :-)

Mr Heywood- the most obvious reply to your question about “What has gone wrong?” is that your well connected and rich friends who think evolutionary biology is wrong have failed to pay out for proper research on alternative theories of evolution.

I like how your list of creationist scientists of high repute is all pre-Darwin, and when you get to post-Darwin scientists you have to invent an out by saying “(arguably)”.

Neither Darwin nor Einstein were creationists.

There were very smart people once upon a time who could legitimately favor creationism. This is not true anymore, since we now have a well-established, strong theory that has replaced creationism. Now you need to be obtuse and ignorant in order to be a creationist.

So because a pianist is called a pianist, all a pianist can do is play top F? Could the word Creationist possibly cover more than one narrow approach to creation? We have Evolution (an unrolling) now meaning a means of unrolling; we have Species (implying special) being re-defined as an ephemeral concept, we have dogs giving birth to cats and now pianists who can only play top C. What next?

Philip Bruce Heywood Wrote:

There is currently discussion in the scienctific literature re. the long-persisting aether question. There are various theories about where all the matter in the universe is hiding out. “Ether Theory”, “Dark Matter Theory”, and so on.

Heywood, please. The hypothesized luminiferous ether was massless, rigid, incompressible and mediated electromagnetic waves. Currently hypothesized “dark matter” is massive, fluid and does not participate in electromagnetic interactions. The only shared properties between the two are that they’re transparent and they’re everywhere. I know that to an IDer that’s descending to Dembski’s “pathetic level of detail,” but actual scientists kind of care about the differences.

There should currently be discussion in the scientific literature re. various possible mechanisms of evolution.

Why, hi there, neutral selection! Hello, genetic drift and founder effects! Howdy, sexual selection and horizontal transfer!

Darwin

Um, if Darwin was a Creationist, can Creationists stop complaining about “Darwinism” now?

Philip Bruce Heywood Wrote:

We have Evolution (an unrolling) now meaning a means of unrolling; we have Species (implying special) being re-defined as an ephemeral concept

This is almost too cruel…but no, “species” never implied “special.” It’s Latin, and it originally meant “sight, look, view, idea, notion, semblance, pretence, apparition, dream.…”

Not “special.” Good thing etymology has no real bearing on modern usage or validity of a scientific term, huh?

“You cannot change the conclusion of the brain by torture; nor by social ostracism. But I will tell you what you can do by these, and what you have done. You can make hypocrites by the million. You can make a man say that he has changed his mind; but he remains of the same opinion still. Put fetters all over him; crush his feet in iron boots; stretch him to the last gasp upon the holy rack; burn him, if you please, but his ashes will be of the same opinion still.”

- Robert G. Ingersoll

The inaccurate version is pithier, of course. :-)

Philip Bruce Heywood Wrote:

There is currently discussion in the scienctific literature re. the long-persisting aether question.

Yeah, right. Do you make this stuff up as you go along or is someone feeding it to you?

Philip Bruce Heywood Wrote:

There are various theories about where all the matter in the universe is hiding out. “Ether Theory”, “Dark Matter Theory”, and so on. You ever hear people getting on stumps and having lawsuits over their particular brand of aether?

Dark matter isn’t a brand of ether and real science isn’t done by lawsuit.

Philip Bruce Heywood Wrote:

You hear them passionately asserting that their brand is the only proven brand?

I hear mathematicians asserting that their definition of Pi is the only proven one against pi-redefiners. I hear them insisting that it is impossible to solve the classic “square the circle” problem against pseudomathematicians certain they have overturned 2000 years of mathematical thought by doing it.

I hear archaeologists passionately denying ARKeologists and Atlantis idiots.

You seem to think this situation is unique. It is not. Every science has its share of idiots demanding that the consensus conclusion is wrong for really stupid reasons. Some new agers are positively certain science denies the existence of Atlantis solely to bolster the “failing patriarchal impositional science paradigm”, that is, the idea that we all live in the same universe and we don’t each get to make up our own laws of physics. Amerind “creationists” argue that the only reason “western” science believes that North America was colonized by a land bridge is to deny the plain truth that their tribe was created by god on their land, thus claiming it’s just anyone’s land so we could take it. And they have evidence that land bridges are a lie, just ask them!

The only thing keeping lawsuits in these fields from happening is that none of these nuts have the power base in the US to force their nonsense into schools. Believe me, if Indiana had redefined pi as they once tried to do, there would have been lawsuits there and it would say nothing about whether the definition of pi was mathematically settled.

Science denial is not unique to creationism, no matter how much you think it is, PBH.

Philip Bruce Heywood Wrote:

There are various theories of evolution. One is named Darwinism.

Nope. The only theory named “Darwinism” is pretty much dead since the 1950’s when the modern synthesis took hold. Anyone still using the term “Darwinism” after that point can only be described as ignorant, stupid or intentionally deceitful. Which are you, PBH?

(Not that they’re necessarily mutually contradictory.)

Scientists agree on the vast majority of evolutionary theory. Sure, there are details that are disagreed upon (like the power of kin selection), but that’s true of every science. So?

Philip Bruce Heywood Wrote:

There should currently be discussion in the scientific literature re. various possible mechanisms of evolution. What’s gone wrong?

There is discussion about the various possibilities in the literature.

ID as proposed by the discoveryless institute is not a scientific possibility.

OEC as proposed by your lot is not a possibility at all.

Since these things aren’t possible and are, in fact, pretty ludicrous, the literature doesn’t waste time on them, just like they don’t talk about Amerind denial of land bridges, new ager insistence on Atlantis, or the possibility that magic crystals can heal cancer.

Your welcome to change this situation by actually doing some science to support your ideas but the Templeton Foundation has been asking you people to take money to do that for years and none of you can even manage a coherent proposal. Sucks to be you, I know.

Philip Bruce Heywood Wrote:

Could the word Creationist possibly cover more than one narrow approach to creation?

It’s used fairly broadly, including everything from strict Last Thursdayism to Hindu “creationists” insisting that the world is infinitely old and was never created at all. A bit over-broad if you ask me, but that’s the usage in these forums.

Philip Bruce Heywood Wrote:

We have Evolution (an unrolling) now meaning a means of unrolling; we have Species (implying special)

Species meant a unit of currency. It just means “type”, not “special”. But why bother learning the truth before making claims! Just make stuff up as you go along.

Get over yourself.

Guthrie, the first part of your statement is (arguably) a little off the mark but the last part shows acumen. If you press on the link that is my name, and proceed, assisted by said acumen, why, for one, we shan’t be talking at cross-purposes, as I find myself doing with those who can’t seem to press on links (or is it, find acumen?)

Ah, Einstein. Was he (broad sense) creationist? Difficult question; his Relativity Theory however leaves no doubt as to the modern technical relevance of the Bible. Technical relevance, however, does not prove the Bible. Technicalities are neuter in relation to experiencing the christian religion.

Neither can technicalities be utilized to prove the opposite. That of itself demonstrates that full-on Darwinism must be technically substandard. True Science cannot be harnessed for purposes of idealogical indoctrination.

Philip Bruce Heywood Wrote:

Ah, Einstein. Was he (broad sense) creationist? Difficult question;

Easy question: No.

Philip Bruce Heywood Wrote:

his Relativity Theory however leaves no doubt as to the modern technical relevance of the Bible.

LOL! Sure, no doubt, except for the majority of people here finding that preposterous!

Philip Bruce Heywood Wrote:

That of itself demonstrates that full-on Darwinism must be technically substandard. True Science cannot be harnessed for purposes of idealogical indoctrination.

Which is why creationists like you have to use false science for those purposes. Please stop.

When one’s opponents’ arguments become indistinguishable from low-level word salad, it’s time to stop arguing with them.

Take a look at your last post, Mr. Heywood, and think about why so many people are simply ignoring you.

Bran fulfilled many prophecies as documented in the Mabinogion. Just like Mohammed fulfilled many prophecies as documented in the Koran. In fact, pretty much every holy book on the planet features characters fulfilling prophecies. Hercules fulfilled prophecies, for that matter. And he’s a god now, it says so right in the story about Hercules.

Might you be so kind to point these out to me?

Maybe the problem is with the seeker of knowledge, and not the knowledge itself. A perfectly rational explanation for being “stunned”.

OOO ad hominem, don’t wanna go that direction.

You seem to miss the point behind Philosophy. It is to ground knowledge, not destroy. Deconstructionism is what you wish to avoid if thats the case, to which we respond by deconstructing it. Skepticism, we just remain skeptical of it. Its Philosophically and Psychologically useful :).

Now, if you wish to assume that evidence is necessary and your Physicalistic point of view is correct, by all means, give me some evidence that proves that the Physicalistic point of view is the only one that is correct. Mind you, this would include that you not use the spoken language to prove it, just as a hint :).

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 11, column 2, byte 1492 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.16/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187.

That is simply playing word games there. Very Intellectually dishonest thing to do.

Continental Philosophy = Postmodernism

At any rate, I’m outtie. Got a big conference tomorrow with Dr. Russ Humphreys as a guest speaker. You might remember him as the one that tried to provide the 8 year old Dave Thomas’s argument (no sources cited, no credentials mentioned, no strong evidence provided) against his model for the origination of the universe :).

Later on guys. Good luck tackling that stuff there, and maybe tomorrow, I’ll have a whole slew of evidence.

would somebody please ban this idiot?

let him claim martyrdom so he can move on and stop flooding all the posting areas with diarrhea already?

Instead of banning, would it be possible to limit him to one or two posts per day? The problem with him is mainly with the numerous posts where one long one would be sufficient (i.e. easier to skip).

His primary problem is that he won’t do proper quotes. It’s not hard! There’s a guide to the markup right there above the box you type in! My fully scientific Annoyance Index confirms he would be 82.3% less annoying if he just learned how to use the quote tags.

I guess he hasn’t let Bran into his heart.

maybe tomorrow, I’ll have a whole slew of evidence

And maybe pigs will evolve wings by sunup, too.

I guess he hasn’t let Bran into his heart.

I thought Bran was more for the Digestive System.

Bran is good for all of you!

Sounds like you are using a lot of those “unevidenced” assumptions to refute those “unevidenced” assumptions :).

Maybe you should learn some philosophy (you know I don’t believe the claims you make of education (you don’t even know how to properly reference) and of knowledge), and discover just what is known, what can be known, and what is possible. Much is “unevidenced”, but “inter-subjectively” sound. You wouldn’t know about these things, would you?

Oh, and uh, huh? Kant’s Epistemology is self refuting?

Is that all you know about it? And anyhow, why are you too ignorant to recognize the validity of Kant’s critique of your mendacious “philosophy”?

You’re like the other IDiots/creationists who have come by, you fail even to understand my point about Kant (Nietzsche, Heidegger, etc.), instead droning out the feeble criticisms that are all you “know” about his work.

An unfixed Philosophy that is presuming itself to be fixed? Yikes, that doesn’t work either Glenn.

Of course it doesn’t. That’s how it’s obvious that such a fiction is your responsibility, not mine.

That…uh, kinda blasts you in the foot.

Have you ever thought of trying to learn how to understand what is being fed to you, instead of spitting it out for not conforming to your own expectations? No, didn’t think so.

You’re a simpleton.

Glen D http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

You seem to miss the point behind Philosophy. It is to ground knowledge, not destroy.

Fine words from someone who doesn’t understand philosophy.

Philosophy’s purpose is to ground what can be ground, and to recognize what cannot be so grounded. People like you understand the first part, and fail to acknowledge the importance of the second part. This is why you insist on a simplistic fictional view, rather than being open to the varieties of experience, of knowing, of mental states, and of thought.

Deconstructionism is what you wish to avoid if thats the case, to which we respond by deconstructing it.

You’re the dolt who thinks that continental philosophy is deconstructionism. I pointedly avoided espousing such a feeble and bankrupt form of “thought” (it has its merits, but not enough that the continent would continue to concern itself with it (it’s gone American/provincial)). And you simply are too dull and dishonest even to recognize the many better strains of continental thought that are out there. Again, your lack of education is apparent.

Skepticism, we just remain skeptical of it. Its Philosophically and Psychologically useful :).

And can you only respond in cliches? I’m rather guessing the answer is “yes”.

Now, if you wish to assume that evidence is necessary and your Physicalistic point of view is correct, by all means, give me some evidence that proves that the Physicalistic point of view is the only one that is correct.

I denied the soundness of your criteria in the previous post, but you’re too ignorant and callow to do anything but demand mindless adherance to your logocentric demands anyhow. I can demonstrate the power and soundness of “physicalism” quite well, but not to mindless bleaters from the old schools of philosophy.

There is a reason why science doesn’t take philosophy seriously very often, and mainly it is due to people like yourself (while I doubt your education in philosophy, I can see that your mindless adherance to its claims is unwavering). However, in its modern (and non-deconstructionistic) forms it can guide science, something that needs to be stated, the more so after you spout your medieval claptrap.

Mind you, this would include that you not use the spoken language to prove it, just as a hint :).

I understand that you’re too stupid to understand that I am not a deconstructionist.

Glen D http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Continental Philosophy = Postmodernism

Yes, I’m sure that that’s all you know about it, dullard. I stick mainly with the Nietzschean strain. Heidegger said it best when he criticized Nietzsche for not breaking with the old tradition of philosophy, that is, he (like Kant) stayed with the normal lines of thought and empiricism, rather than fictionalizing the world like Heidegger did.

I don’t suppose you could say anything intelligent about Deleuze and continental philosophy? Or phenomenology? No? You’re obviously talking out of your abundant ignorance, blithering from your narrow “education” in the truth which cannot be questioned.

At any rate, I’m outtie. Got a big conference tomorrow with Dr. Russ Humphreys as a guest speaker. You might remember him as the one that tried to provide the 8 year old Dave Thomas’s argument (no sources cited, no credentials mentioned, no strong evidence provided) against his model for the origination of the universe :).

You’re blithering again.

Later on guys. Good luck tackling that stuff there, and maybe tomorrow, I’ll have a whole slew of evidence.

You understand “evidence” about as well as you read. Like an eight-year old.

Glen D http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Syntax Error: not well-formed (invalid token) at line 22, column 42, byte 2481 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.16/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187.

Fascinating Michael Martin is handling Glenn :-) And Glenn is responding in his usual manner… This is quite enjoyable as it shows once again the shallowness.

Michael Martin Wrote:

That the earth is only 6-10,000 years old as I have no further evidence to conclude that its any older than such a date. I am a Young Earth Creation Scientist, and am so after doing a very thorough and honest investigation of all sides of the Scientific coin if you will.

These statements seem to be self contradicting. You cannot hold to a young earth and claim that you have done a thorough and honest investigation of all sides of the scientific coin and then claim that you have ‘no further evidencve to conclude its any older than such a date”.

Scientifically speaking the case against a young earth is overwhelming.

Fascinating Michael Martin is handling Glenn :)-

Just an attack, eh Pim? Again you show your inability to judge, and your hatred of learning. Christ, you can’t even spell my name right, let alone understand what “handling” means, dolt.

And Glenn is responding in his usual manner…

Which you don’t understand, any better than you understand science. Why don’t you stick to your apologetics, or get some education?

This is quite enjoyable as it shows once again the shallowness.

Pim gloats as an ass-hat babbles on. Showing his abysmal shallowness, to use his own words.

Or, if you have anything intelligent to say, Pim, say it. Mere attacks only indicate how little you are able to comprehend and to respond, much as in the past.

Should I just point out how often religionists are responsible for such despicable displays? I know that all are not, but too many are. There would be some cause to ban you for being a troll, Pim (if not enough).

And apparently you manage to disagree with the dolt Martin scientifically, while showing your usual uncomprehending contempt toward myself. Naturally, since you were never able to respond at all well to what I had written, preferring to banish what I wrote to allowing it to point up the dishonesty of your reply to me:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bi[…]=1272;st=810 (about a fifth or fourth of the way down)

And guess what, Pim? You don’t get to censor me here. You can demonstrate your lack of learning all you wish, sans the capacity to wipe out the many discrepancies from the truth in your replies to me.

Glen D http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

A predictable response. I really should stop pushing Glenn’s buttons but it’s so much… well fun..

While Glen(n) is self destructing, it’s time to finalize my long promised posting.

By the way, Pim, thanks for again being on the side of the stupid and the prejudiced. It’s not surprising, however it is gratifying, that your blind hatred of me for calling you on your dishonesty would lead you first to attack me, instead of the dolt who you are supposed to be against as a “scientist”.

I like the credentialism, too, that you used in favor of the mindless BS of “Dr. Martin”. I don’t doubt that your scholastic mind will always prefer credentials to truth, even though you yourself ended up pointing out how blatantly uninformed Martin is. I suppose that you, who know nothing of philosophy, will maintain that the egregious Martin is still more informed about these mattethan I am (though if you knew anything about it you’d recognize how uneducated Martin is), even though I am the defender of science. Then again, you certainly aren’t much of a defender of science.

Your prejudices nearly put you beyond the range of science in the ideal sense.

And just think, if you knew when not to write, I wouldn’t be responding to your BS right now. I would have left you alone in your ignorance if you simply had known when to shut up. Instead you sided with the creationist against me, demonstrating once again that your personal agenda is more important to you than is any respect you might have for the truth.

Glen D http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

A predictable response.

Then why didn’t you predict it? Oh, that’s right, you make statements, you don’t worry if they’re true, you don’t back them up, you simply act like the ID side acts.

You couldn’t predict the first thing that I write, because you don’t understand it. That’s why you hate it, and me, and rely on fallacies to substitute put-downs for your lack of intelligence and learning.

I really should stop pushing Glenn’s buttons but it’s so much… well fun..

You really get off on your dishonesty, don’t you Pim? Since you can’t banish what I write here, and you can’t write anything intelligent in response to what I wrote, you simply attack, with the usual disregard for truth.

Now your mis-spelling of my name is intentional, to compound your usual ignorance and lack of acuity. And you were the one who was worried about “attacks”, when all you are capable of countering me with are fallacies and egregious attacks. You’re about the worst offender on the matter of civility, as you do nothing but attack, no matter how dishonest you must be in your attacks.

While Glen(n) is self destructing, it’s time to finalize my long promised posting.

Sure, no doubt. And I’m sure that you are a credible person on this forum.

You accused PG, myself, and others of simple ad hominem attacks, another thing you couldn’t back up. Indeed, I had argued with intelligence and learning about many subjects, generally avoiding attacks. So no wonder you didn’t back up that particular lapse from the truth, eh?

But you don’t understand what I write, and you hate what you don’t understand, much as the IDists do.

So I’m “self-destructing” because of the mindless attacks of the egregious Pim. What a hypocrite, above all in his supposed piety about responding with respect to other people. He has never been able to do so himself, which is the only reason why I had to call him on his many lapses from the truth, his fallacies, and his incapacity at understanding science, philosophy, etc.

Note that he doesn’t even attempt to back up his statements, evidently because he knows that he cannot. But then he didn’t even begin to use argumentation or evidence, resorting to his usual tack, sheer blind prejudice.

Glen D http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

I hate to admit it, but I think Panda’s Thumb is doomed.

I think you’re right. After all, there’s not much use for an anti-creationist/ID forum when creationist/IDers are dead, dead, dead.

Give it 20 years, when they’re back with a new scam, and PT will once again become its old self.

In the meantime, we have no oen left to fight with but each other.

I’ll have a whole slew of evidence

Where are the witches, Doc.

And should women be allowed to speak in church?

“I hate to admit it, but I think Panda’s Thumb is doomed.”

It may be true that ID is dead, but the fundies will never go away. If you’re looking for fun, there’s always www.fstdt.com

“I hate to admit it, but I think Panda’s Thumb is doomed.”

It may be true that ID is dead, but the fundies will never go away. If you’re looking for fun, there’s always www.fstdt.com

Let’s hope that PT is doomed, as that would tend to indicate that ID is moribund, if not actually dead. I, for one, have preferred arguing ID over arguing YEC because it seems virtually pointless to argue with those who can’t see that the earth is old, or that life has changed over time (viz. AFDave on AtBC).

UD has sometimes crowed that the anti-IDists are dependent upon ID to be anti-IDists. Typical brilliance. Of course we’re anti-ID simply because IDists are fighting science, but we’d like for science to not be questioned and the conditions would exist so that being anti-ID is unnecessary.

That said, we do not really need IDists or creationists over here for PT to function. The stone walls against normal scientific practice, and standard scientific evidence, erected by nearly all of them has made almost all of the encounters with IDists useful only to show to lurkers how immune to science they really are. But they do that on UD without our help.

To point up the fact that we don’t need IDists here, the usual way PTers have of responding to UD now is via AtBC’s “Uncommonly Dense” thread. They don’t allow us to answer their claims on their forums, a few truly egregious trolls have been bounced off of PT, and the rest of the UDers are as unwilling to face us here as they are at UD.

Guess I’ll have to check out your address.

Glen D http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Fascinating Michael Martin is handling Glenn :-) And Glenn is responding in his usual manner… This is quite enjoyable as it shows once again the shallowness.

This is a nit-witted thing to say.

The trouble with a guy like Dr Martin is that he sounds like he knows what he’s talking about (he’s fooled PvM, by the look of it), and the fallacious things he says actually require non-trivial argumentation.

In other words, Dr. Martin’s refutations require depth.

“ID is dead.” or moribund…

But remember, ZOMBIES!

It may be true that ID is dead, but the fundies will never go away.

Neither will the geocentrists. (grin)

But without the political support of the Republicrat Party, the fundies are nothing but a sewing circle.

And I have the feeling that the Republicrat Party is, very shortly, not going to be in any shape to help the fundies.

Even if they WANTED to (which they don’t).

Re “But remember, ZOMBIES!”

Got Zombies? Call Buffy!

Henry

ID was already the zombified corpse of “Scientific Creationism”, which was the zombified corpse of Creationism, a la Morris, which was the zombified corpse of Price’s creationism, which was the zombified corpse of…

And the fundamentalists claim they object to black magic with all that necromancy going on!

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by PZ Myers published on September 27, 2006 12:08 PM.

The “Banning” of Pandas - an update was the previous entry in this blog.

Tangled Bank #63 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 4.381

Site Meter