ID FLunked: Are all Darwin Skeptics Religious Fundamentalists?

| 41 Comments | 1 TrackBack

flunked.jpgOn EvolutionNews, Robert Crowther creates a strawman and knocks it down by confusing the term “Darwin Skeptic” with “Intelligent Design proponent”. Remember that the claim is not that all Darwin skeptics are religious fundamentalists but rather that ID is irreparably tied to religious concepts and motivations and lacking in scientific content.

Remember that Berlinski is on the record as “I have never expressed support for theories (sic) of Intelligent Design…”. or the following excerpt in which he distances himself from Intelligent Design?

Berlinski Wrote:

“If I thought that intelligent design, or any artful contrivance like it, explained anything in any depth, I would leap to the cannon’s mouth and say so. I do not and I did not.” For the record: I do not believe that theories of intelligent design explain those features of living systems that Darwin’s theory of evolution fails to explain. And vice-versa.

In other words, the simple fact that there are skeptics of Darwinian theory should not be conflated with proponents of Intelligent Design. Which is why the Discovery’s Institute’s statement, now signed by almost 700 ‘scientists’ is also misleading as it states something most anyone, even Darwin himself would have agreed with

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

Of course, this is a far cry from the relevance of Intelligent Design.

So rest assured, Not all Darwin Skeptics are religious fundamentalist but an overwhelming majority of Intelligent Design proponents are religiously motivated.

Just to set the record straight.

I am not sure what Crowther is trying to achieve here. Does he believe that Berlinski’s rejection of Intelligent Design somehow strengthens the movement? Does he believe that Behe calling Miller an Intelligent Design proponent because of Miller’s religious faith helpful in rejecting that Intelligent Design is inherently religious in nature?

1 TrackBack

PvM clarifies the issue whether all Darwin Skeptics are religious fundamentalists. He sums it up quite clearly in one sentence So rest assured, Not all Darwin Skeptics are religious fundamentalist but an overwhelming majority of Intelligent Design prop... Read More

41 Comments

Another example of lies by the Discovery Institute.

As much as I beleive in freedom of speech, don’t you think we can make a damning case for shutting down the “Evolution News and Views” website for willful acts of FRAUD against the public? Even testimony in a court of law that is falsified can result in the witness involved being charged with PURJURY, so freedom of speech is not absolute.

Technically I see it not as a lie but rather as ‘bait and switch’ or equivocation where ‘darwin skeptic’ and ‘intelligent design’ are to be interpreted as analogous. While Intelligent Design proponents are likely to be Darwin Skeptics, the reverse is hardly the case. In fact, the term Darwinism itself suggests that evolutionary science has not progressed since Darwin proposed his ideas over 150 years ago. Crowther can always state that he was merely addressing the claim that Darwin deniers skeptics are religious fundamentalists, although, I have not seen this claim, nor the terminology much outside the ID “literature”.

Some skeptics are indeed misinformed, but, all of the ones I’ve encountered pull their (mis)information from Creationist or ID sources.

You just have to go to the Discovery Institute claptrap and see how they have been selling Berlinski’s involvement as a fellow of the Discovery Institute for years. Even though he has said things along the lines that he never bought into the intelligent design scam. Just look at how the Discovery Institute’s propaganda has played up the participation of Jewish participants and agnostics at the institute. Berlinski is the only fellow that I know of that fits either description even if the Discovery Institute uses them dishonestly as the Discovery Institute having a broad religious base (Jews too as well as Christians) and also agnostics signing up. The same person cannot be used for both categories, and yet that is how they sell Berlinski. If they have another Jewish participant or agnostic who are they?

Since Berlinski came out and claimed that he had never bought into the ID claptrap after Ohio the only reason that they keep him around is for his propaganda value. There have been multiple times that I’ve seen the Discovery Institute’s propaganda mention Jewish and agnostic fellows after Ohio, so who are these guys if they aren’t all Berlinski?

Remember that IDologues are not limited to misquoting evolution supporters. They can misquote anyone. Exploitation of the increasingly senile Antony Flew comes to mind. Michael Denton has expressly denied permission for the DI to quote his earlier, anti-evolutionary works, but they continue to do so.

Where did you hear that Denton didn’t want the Discovery Institute using his earlier bunk that he discarded?

I think that Denton has been the only senior fellow to have been given the ax or decided to call it quits. Didn’t they only demoted Kenyon to fellow after the Pandas fiasco? Denton found out that the big tent didn’t extend to supernatural designers that didn’t fit the profile for the Christian god. I found the basket case review of his second book pretty amusing with the other Discovery Institute fellows taking their licks at it. The only reason to use Denton’s first book for anything but toilet paper after he wrote his second book would be because people are still ignorant enough to fall for it. Fooling people is the business of the Discovery Institute, so I could see if Denton had some integrity that he’d try to get them to stop using it for dishonest propaganda purposes, but I’ve never heard of it.

Why Evolutionists Misportray All Opposition To Their Theory To Come From Fundamentalists

If Fundamentalism is the bad element in any given good (and it is); then the same corresponds to Atheist-evolutionism as well. Like their counterparts in Protestantism, they are the bad element of science conducting the same business on the opposite side of the street. Basic psychology teaches us that we overtly condemn that which we are covertly guilty of the most. Evolutionists constantly misportray all opposition to Darwinism to come from religious Fundamentalists. The point breaks down in that the slander of opposition to Darwinism is anything but covert, but the fact of correspondence to Fundamentalism remains intact.

I think evolutionary biology is like every other science in that there are those out there who are simply cranks and deny the mainstream science for whatever reasons they have that may have nothing to do with religion. Maybe they see themselves as mavericks, bucking the system and standing up to The Man. Or maybe they have something to sell that depends on demonizing the hated mainstream ‘THEM’. Once emotionally and intellectually invested in a position they will invariably hang on to it at all cost. They may even use the exact same arguments as the religious fundies. The only difference being that the fundy will tack on “and therefore God”, or “and therefore Intelligent Design” on the end, and they will not.

Ray Wrote:

Why Evolutionists Misportray All Opposition To Their Theory To Come From Fundamentalists

False premise.

If Fundamentalism is the bad element in any given good (and it is); then the same corresponds to Atheist-evolutionism as well. Like their counterparts in Protestantism, they are the bad element of science conducting the same business on the opposite side of the street. Basic psychology teaches us that we overtly condemn that which we are covertly guilty of the most. Evolutionists constantly misportray all opposition to Darwinism to come from religious Fundamentalists. The point breaks down in that the slander of opposition to Darwinism is anything but covert, but the fact of correspondence to Fundamentalism remains intact.

Can we thus conclude that your continued misrepresentation of evolution is evidence that you really know that evolution is correct?

How is calling the opposition Christian fundamentalist a slander? The truth can never be slander remember?

ID equivocates between Intelligent Design and Skeptics of Darwinism, when the real issue is neither but rather skeptics of evolution. Most biologists are skeptics of evolution in some form. This however does not mean that they disagree with the fact of evolution, the fact of common descent but rather they disagree about mechanisms and their relative importances. Thus there are selectionists, neutralists, evo-devo’ists, symbiosis’ists and more, none of them deny that all these processes play a role, but they disagree as to the extent of which one(s) is/are the most relevant ones.

Once people return to the simple premises of Darwin, many of the issues disappear. Variation, reproduction and fitness effects, where fitness effects can range from zero, such as in neutral evolution (see note at end) to 1, the only effect.

Note: While neutrality does not rely on selection, the origin and evolution of neutrality/degeneracy can in fact be shown to be under selective pressures. In addition to adding robustness, neutrality also adds to evolvability as it allows genetic variation to ‘diffuse’ away via neutral paths to explore a much larger genetic sequence space.

Berlinski is a strange duck, annoyed by the attention Dawkins and others seem to be getting rather effortlessly. He also seems to have an attraction to mathematics.

read this interview for a glimpse at Berlinski. I believe that a simple observation explains most of his behavior: “He loves to hear himself talk”.

Who are these skeptics of evolution? According to the invaluable talkorigins, roughly 99% of the relevant scientists in the cradle of wingnut moronic fundie creos, the USA accept the reality of evolution.

From talkorigins.org:

Many scientists reject evolution and support creationism. Source: Morris, Henry. 1980. The ICR scientists. Impact 86 (Aug.). http://www.icr.org/index.php?module[…]w&ID=163 Response: Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in “creation-science” or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.

Being skeptical of evolution and $1.80 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. Tens of thousands believe that Xenu the Galactic Overlord dumped billions of Thetan ghosts on our world and they have been haunting us ever since. There is no belief too dumb that someone won’t believe it. If someone is skeptical of evolution without any coherent, well thought out reasons, who cares and why should they?

PvM:

Berlinski is a strange duck, annoyed by the attention Dawkins and others seem to be getting rather effortlessly. He also seems to have an attraction to mathematics.

read this interview for a glimpse at Berlinski. I believe that a simple observation explains most of his behavior: “He loves to hear himself talk”.

I sense that the common themes running through ID/Creationism, critics of scientists and science, and perveyors of infinite energy and perpetual motion is jealousy, megalomania, and extreme frustration that they haven’t achieved the recognition they think they deserve.

Wow, I keep coming here hoping to learn some decent science, but I am so often dissappointed. The original post misses Crowther’s original point: as a Darwin skeptic, he is attacked by Darwinists as a religious conservative. The fact that he is against ID, as vM points out, makes these attacks MORE ridiculous not less so. Is the best response to this fact really to criticize ID proponents for not including his criticisms of ID in their article?

Let’s look at the comments to see if Crowther’s is warranted in feeling that those who don’t believe in Darwin are the victims of silly ad hominem attacks. PvM thinks his is an “odd duck.” Dale thinks Darwin critics should be silenced for fraud. Stanton is generous as characterizing Crowthers as only “misinformed,” like other poor victims of those evil ID folks. From Okimoto’s viewpoint, it seems all about the Jews, for some reason. According to Orlorin, Flew must be senile. To Dave S, anyone who doesn’t agree with mainstream Darwinism is a crank. I am not sure what the heck Ray is saying, but in responding to him, PvM says, “How is calling the opposition Christian fundamentalist a slander? The truth can never be slander remember?” Doesn’t this statement prove Crowther’s point that Darwinists are mistaken in thinking that all opposition is from Christian fundamentalists?

Come on guys! What are rational people with questions about Darwin (raised by ID or elsewhere) going to think when they come to this site looking for insight? You expect this kind of stuff from IDers, but they increasingly come across as wanting to talk about the science, while every time I come here, I am disappointed in the level of discourse. Rather than call Flew “senile,” address the points he makes about his conversion. Say something (other than they are cranks and misinformed) about why some respected mathematicians and physicists are not buying Darwin. Something that starts with the admission that we still have a lot to learn about the process. The science is about coming up with better explanations and theories, not defending any current theory by attacking its critics. In posting this, I realize that I am going to be attacked, but really, think about it a little.

Gary creo lying as usual:

Say something (other than they are cranks and misinformed) about why some respected mathematicians and physicists are not buying Darwin.

Sounds like typical creo lies. Who are these respected mathematicans and physicists and why don’t they buy evolution? Dembski doesn’t count, he is a disreputatable, dishonest, kook. And BTW, why should I care about what a physicist or mathematician thinks about evolution any more than I care what he thinks about taking out someone’s appendix or disk.

BTW, Gary, think and read before you lie. Read my post above, 99% of US scientists in relevant fields accept reality. It is even higher in the rest of the world. And the few that do freely admit that they do so for religious reasons. Rather more scientists have been diagnosed as insane for one reason or another and/or locked up in an asylum.

False premise.

Rather, a commenter who reads only the headline, and don’t make it through the second sentence in the post. Or perhaps is too stoopid to figure it out.

He also seems to have an attraction to mathematics.

As Martinez has an unlucky love affair with commenting, Berlinski has an unlucky love affair with mathematics. Neither gets to first base. (In Berlinski’s case we would only have to consider the speech when he IIRC tried to discuss basic definitions of limits with top rate mathematicians.)

Gary, I can only say if you think that the scientists and informed laymen here have just been using ad hominem attacks on ID supporters, you’re mistaken. There have been many patient, point-by-point refutations of pro-ID/creationist postings.

From the other side, I have seen a great unwillingness to respond to direct, repeated requests for evidence of ID, erection of straw men and appeals to authority and ignorance. It is not surprising that some posters get angry at such evasiveness.

You expect this kind of stuff from IDers, but they increasingly come across as wanting to talk about the science, while every time I come here, I am disappointed in the level of discourse.

More lies and subterfuge.

Creationists criticizes major parts of biology, cosmology, et cetera by erecting strawmen, pubjacking, et cetera. They are definitely not interested in any science, as they don’t engage the published research as it is but quote-mine it to pretend support for their cause. (So called pubjack.) They are also not interested in making creationism respectable by defining it and provide suggestions of mechanisms that can lead to prediction. There is no science or talk on teh science there.

As regards PT, while the site is devoted to serve persons “critical of the antievolution movement”, it does so from a science perspective. You can find many articles or references to science here. But I would suggest general biology blogs for the type of discussion you describe, more or less entirely devoted to science and only occasionally discussing the anti-science .movement

Berlinski Wrote: “If I thought that intelligent design, or any artful contrivance like it, explained anything in any depth, I would leap to the cannon’s mouth and say so. I do not and I did not.” For the record: I do not believe that theories of intelligent design explain those features of living systems that Darwin’s theory of evolution fails to explain. And vice-versa.

Wikipedia Berlinski:

Intelligent design An outspoken critic of evolution, Berlinski is a Fellow of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, a Seattle-based think-tank that is hub of the intelligent design movement. The scientific community, however, regards intelligent design as pseudoscience.[3] The ruling in the 2005 Dover case held that intelligent design is a form of creationism[4] and that the intelligent design movement is a political rather than scientific movement. Berlinski denies believing in intelligent design,[citation needed], but is a scathing critic of “Darwinism”, the term used in the Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns for evolution. [3]

Though the Discovery Institute portrays Berlinski as a scholarly writer and “mathematician,”[5] Mark Perakh, a critic of the intelligent design movement, contends that Berlinski’s writings are not scientific, but popular, and that Berlinski “has no known record of his own contribution to the development of mathematics or of any other science.”[6]

Berlinski, along with fellow Discovery Institute associates Michael Behe and William A. Dembski, tutored Ann Coulter on science and evolution for her book Godless: The Church of Liberalism.[7] Approximately one-third of the book is devoted to polemical attacks on evolution, which Coulter, as Berlinski often does, terms “Darwinism”.

Berlinski was a longtime friend of the late Marcel-Paul Schützenberger (1920-1996), with whom he collaborated on an unfinished and unpublished mathematical polemic that he described as being “devoted to the Darwinian theory of evolution.”[8] Berlinski dedicated The Advent of the Algorithm to Schutzenberger.

In a 2006 DVD, Berlinski made the statement:[9]

The interesting argument about the whale, which is a mammal after all, is that if its origins where[sic] land-based originally…what do you have to do from an engineering point of view to change a cow into a whale?…Virtually every feature of the cow has to change, has to be adapted.

Getting back to my point, Berlinski, who I have never heard of, is a fellow of the DI but doesn’t believe in ID or evolution. OK, so what does he believe in? If not godditit, the Easter Bunny didit? And why should anyone care?

Looks like he is just a rhetoritician who claims without evidence to be a “mathematician” and has no qualifications in science. Inasmuch as he voluntarily associates with Ann Coulter, really, he just looks like another kook.

Further BS from Gary:

Wow, I keep coming here hoping to learn some decent science

Assuming that there’s any chance of this being true, then (1) try taking a college class, or at least read a college-level textbook on the topic (or even one of the reputable popular books that have been listed in this blog over the last few years), and (2) all the science that you’re looking for has been said innumberable times before on PT and also on TalkOrigins. If you haven’t heard of the TalkOrigins Index to Creationist Claims (and no, I’m not going to give you the link, do what any intelligent person would do and find it yourself), then check that out and you’ll see that virtually every claim that the IDists/creationists have made has already been discussed.

…those who don’t believe in Darwin…Darwinists…Darwinism…

Yadda, yadda, yadda. It’s already been explained that this isn’t accurate. (And by the way, I think that everyone, even creationists, believes Darwin existed.)

(speaking of Crowther) PvM thinks his is an “odd duck.”

(1) PvM was talking about Berlinski, not Crowther. (2) At least quote correctly, if you’re using quote marks. The phrase was “strange duck”. (3) Can you even use proper English? The correct pronoun is “he”, not “his”. (I admit that grammatical mistakes in blog postings by the pro-science side bug me too.)

Dale thinks Darwin critics should be silenced for fraud.

I agree that this is over the top.

Stanton is generous as characterizing Crowthers as only “misinformed,” like other poor victims of those evil ID folks.

I doubt Stanton was referring to Crowther (not “Crowthers”). If he was, I agree that he is being generous. Many people are indeed misinformed, and are so as Stanton suggested, by Creationist and IDist sources, but most of the movements’ leadership have shown that they are deliberately deceptive. That’s called “lying”.

From Okimoto’s viewpoint, it seems all about the Jews, for some reason.

You’re either having reading comprehension problems, or you are misinterpreting this deliberately. He’s just pointing out that, once again, the DI is lying. In addition, the lack of support of ID by other religions besides Fundamentalist Christian sects does (along with, you know, the lack of real science) demonstrate the inherently religious nature of ID. Evolution is supported by a huge range of religious and non-religious people, supporting the conclusion that evolution is not a religious proposition.

To Dave S, anyone who doesn’t agree with mainstream Darwinism is a crank.

Given the overwhelming acceptance among mainstream scientists (and, as has been pointed out, especially among earth scientists and biologists), and that 150 years of scientific discovery supports evolution, what’s the alternative? At best, the deniers are sadly misinformed.

I am not sure what the heck Ray is saying

At least we can agree with that.

Hey, Raven? Please tell me that this:

Tens of thousands believe that Xenu the Galactic Overlord dumped billions of Thetan ghosts on our world and they have been haunting us ever since.

was a joke?

Gary Wrote:

Wow, I keep coming here hoping to learn some decent science, but I am so often dissappointed. The original post misses Crowther’s original point: as a Darwin skeptic, he is attacked by Darwinists as a religious conservative. The fact that he is against ID, as vM points out, makes these attacks MORE ridiculous not less so. Is the best response to this fact really to criticize ID proponents for not including his criticisms of ID in their article?

Let’s look at the comments to see if Crowther’s is warranted in feeling that those who don’t believe in Darwin are the victims of silly ad hominem attacks. PvM thinks his is an “odd duck.”

I personally find that not much of an insult to describe Berlinski, not for his opposition to Darwinism and Intelligent Design but rather for his comments in the interview I linked to. If anything I oppose Berlinski for his clear misunderstanding of evolution. Darwin skeptics exist in all shapes and forms as I have attempted to explain, neutralists, selectionists, evo-devo, symbiosis are all various aspects of evolutionary skeptics. Berlinski seems to merely downplay evolutionary science, based mostly on his ignorance rather than address the incredible gain in knowledge in just the last 5 years. That Berlinski has no alternative to explain evolution merely reinforces my belief that Berlinski does not care one way or the other about evolution, it’s all about him.

Come on guys! What are rational people with questions about Darwin (raised by ID or elsewhere) going to think when they come to this site looking for insight? You expect this kind of stuff from IDers, but they increasingly come across as wanting to talk about the science, while every time I come here, I am disappointed in the level of discourse. Rather than call Flew “senile,” address the points he makes about his conversion.

Flew admitted he was misled by those explaining ID to him but fails to have understood the impact. I see no relevance one way or the other in disagreeing with people’s positions of faith, it’s when they make silly comments about science when I feel to speak out.

ID is not interested in a discussion about Darwinism, let alone evolutionary science, they are fighting a cultural war. My contributions are to show that the evidence does support evolutionary theory and shows that ID remains scientifically vacuous.

Yes, some commenters do seem to be rather unforgiving in their comments, such is the cost of this blog allowing free commentary under most circumstances.

I agree with you calling Flew senile is not much of a positive contribution. If you took offense for me refering to Berlinski as an odd duck then I apologize and hope you understand that I based my comments not on Berlinski’s opposition to Darwinism but rather on the interview with Witt.

wikipedia: Xenu.

Xenu (also Xemu), pronounced [‘zi.nu:], according to Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard, was the dictator of the “Galactic Confederacy” who, 75 million years ago, brought billions[1] of his people to Earth in DC-8-like spacecraft, stacked them around volcanoes and killed them using hydrogen bombs. Scientology holds that their essences remained, and that they form around people in modern times, causing them spiritual harm.[2][3]

These events are known to Scientologists as “Incident II”, and the traumatic memories associated with them as The Wall of Fire. The story of Xenu is part of Scientologist teachings on extraterrestrial civilizations and alien interventions in Earthly events, collectively described as space opera by Hubbard. Hubbard detailed the story in Operating Thetan level III (OT III) in 1967, warning that this material was “calculated to kill (by pneumonia etc) anyone who attempts to solve it.”[sic]

GvlGeologist, I’m absolutely shocked that you could consider the sincere beliefs of a whole church as .…A JOKE!!!

Fortunately Hubbard is dead so he won’t be having his minions take you out. I think. BTW, chances are you are surrounded by Thetan ghosts who are parasitizing your soul. Sort of psychic vampires.

You can get rid of them for $50,000 or so, payable to the Church of Scientology. Or someone can get you discount on the grey market. $1.80 or a cup of Starbucks should do nicely.

Tens of thousands believe that Xenu the Galactic Overlord dumped billions of Thetan ghosts on our world and they have been haunting us ever since.

Nope this is Scientology 101

You can get rid of them for $50,000

The check is in the mail.

Re Berlinski

It should be pointed out that Dr. Berlinski is not, repeat not a mathematician. His PhD is in philosophy. Somehow, the false impression that his PhD is in mathematics has gotten about. There has been discussion on this point on both Jason Rosenhouses’ blog and on Larry Morans’ blog. In particular, it appears that Dr. Berlinski, despite having received his PhD some 40 years ago has never had a paper published in a peer reviewed mathematics journal.

Re Ron Okimoto

I believe that a gentleman named David Klinghoffer, who is Jewish, is also a Discovery Institute fellow.

Gary :

Dale thinks Darwin critics should be silenced for fraud.

Strawman! My exact statement was:

Dale Husband:

Another example of lies by the Discovery Institute.

As much as I beleive in freedom of speech, don’t you think we can make a damning case for shutting down the “Evolution News and Views” website for willful acts of FRAUD against the public? Even testimony in a court of law that is falsified can result in the witness involved being charged with PURJURY, so freedom of speech is not absolute.

I myself feel free to criticise Darwin, Dawkins, Stephen Jay Gould, Carl Sagan, and any other supporter of evolution. What I, and others, should NOT do is LIE like I’ve seen the Evolution News and Views site do. Heck, the very title of that site is a falsehood!

SLC, I went to the DI web site and David Klinghoffer is not listed as a fellow or senior fellow. Some of the articles lists him as a senior fellow and some don’t. You can bring up a lot of articles by him all except one after 2005. Berlinski and the ID propaganda has been going on about since the Discovery Institute’s CRSC creationist scam outfit was founded. He does seem to be an ID advocate. In the couple articles that I scanned he writes like any other Christian fundy. He is just less direct in advocating his falsehoods and accusations. Someone like Philip Johnson on a good day. If he is or was a senior fellow he seems to have signed on just in time to get kicked in the teeth by Dover.

I can’t imagine what it would be like to sign on with a bunch of totally incompetent and or dishonest creationist scam artists just in time to be publically exposed along with them.

To Dave S, anyone who doesn’t agree with mainstream Darwinism is a crank.

That depends in part on what “Darwinism” is. You don’t call those who accept mainstream chemistry as ‘Daltonists’, do you?

As GvlGeologist points out, sometimes that person is merely ill informed. Or maybe they will hold one opinion simply because it supports another that’s cherished.

All the signs of the crank are there…repeated missrepresentations of what the actual science states, the insistance in a conspiracy that keeps their ideas out of the mainsteam, the refusal to test their ideas or the insistance that merely criticising the other guys ideas counts as a test of theirs, the use of pop media (books, press releases, movies) to present claims instead of the scientific literature or symposia. I could go on.

The religiously inspired crank as opposed to the non-religious simply has another motivation.

Gary says, “Wow, I keep coming here hoping to learn some decent science, but I am so often dissappointed [sic].”

Uh huh. And then he goes on for three paragraphs about personalities. Now, why isn’t he over on one of the more scientifically-oriented threads, discussing science?

Action speak louder than words, kiddo.

Maybe Gary should go to Uncommon Descent to view all the threads there the discuss the scientific theory of intelligent design.

Wait a sec…there aren’t any.

Hey Gary, it’s been 24 hours since you posted your whine. There have been 8 (by my count) responses addressed directly to you. Any response, or are you admitting that you’re just a troll?

Sorry GvlGeologist FCD for not responding sooner. Now that I am here I see from the posts that I am a “creo,” a “liar,” a “troll,” guilty of various spelling and gramatically errors, and, in trying to give you a sense of what I was reading, guilty of not quoting you all exactly and in complete context. I asked whether or not we can raise the level of discourse above name-calling and the response to this request is more name calling. Wright, in what may be the only response that isn’t name-calling, says, correctly, that people do discuss ID issues on a point-by-point basis. They do–elsewhere–but my post addressed the level of discussion here and how it looks. My mistake. You don’t want to hear it. I get it.

No, you don’t get it. We are sick of intellectually dishonest bullshit, and the charlatens and trolls that produce it. Don’t want to get treated like them? Then don’t make statements like “[IDers] increasingly come across as wanting to talk about the science”, which is the kind of claim that could only come from someone who is lying, or ignorant of the discussions that have gone on here.

Want to talk about some science? Fine, raise your issues. You’ll be amazed how different the response is.

I’m extremely worried that the level of discourse here at PT is being dragged down by all the concern trolling.

Gary, In my first post about your original posting: I implied your posting was BS. I then went point by point to support that:

Of the 8 points of your post that I addressed,

I suggested ways that you could rectify your ignorance. In the same part, I gave historical reasons why the “level of discourse” can occasionally be harsh - that the points made by creationists and IDists have previously been refuted, yet continue to be made.

I pointed out that you were using incorrect, and loaded, terms.

I held you to the same standard that other scientific writers are held to - correct referents, correct quoting, and good grammar. If you think that’s harsh, you should see some of the peer reviews I’ve received in the past. I pointed out that these problems bother me in posts made that I agree with.

I pointed out 3 places in your post where your interpretations were incorrect. I implied that it might be deliberate on your part, because these misinterpretations are consistent with typical creationist behavior.

I agreed with you twice.

——————————————

When you say things that are demonstrably untrue, you have to expect to be called a liar. When you use the same classic arguments and terminology as creationists, you have to expect to be called a creationist. When you do it in typical troll-like fashion, you have have to be called a troll.

Prove us wrong. Elevate the level of discourse by educating yourself about these topics from scientific sources. Don’t use arguments that have been thoroughly discredited elsewhere. Don’t use loaded and incorrect terms to address the people you say you are trying to reach. Do it all in a literate and accurate fashion. And address the points that people make about your own posts, instead of complaining that people are being rude to you unnecessarily.

The closest I came to “name-calling” is when I said your post was BS. Prove it wasn’t. Educate yourself, get over your hurt feelings and address the criticisms made about your posts in a mature and honest fashion, and you will find that you’ll be treated better in this posting board.

Oh, and one more thing. If you think the “level of discourse” here is so bad, go over to UD and try raising theirs. See what happens if you complain to DaveScott or any other of the moderators about name calling.

Oh, that’s right, you think they talk about science there. Ask about “street theater” or farts and see how far it gets you.

you have have to be called a troll

should be: “you have to expect to be called a troll”

See Gary, when discover that you made a mistake, you correct it.

Gary the lying creo troll:

They do–elsewhere–but my post addressed the level of discussion here and how it looks. My mistake. You don’t want to hear it. I get it.

Gary, it is real simple. If you don’t want to be called a lying, creo, troll, then don’t act like a lying, creo, troll. It’s not like PT isn’t invaded daily by trolls. You yourself have managed to drag the discussion down to fundie moron level which is obviously your intent

If you have something intelligent and on topic to say, say it. Otherwise go whine and troll somewhere else. .

wikipedia:

An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who intentionally posts controversial or contrary messages in an on-line community such as an on-line discussion forum or group with the intention of baiting users into an argumentative response.

Gary is just a troll posting insulting remarks to provoke a counter response. And a rather feeble, boring one at that. Don’t feed the troll.

Oooh, I called Gary ‘kiddo.’ I feel sooo guilty!!!

I’ve been called ‘uneducated’ ‘moron’ and a few other things on this site. And my interests, the history and sociology of science, are a little tangential to the main interests of a lot of the posters here.

But, ya know, I don’t waste much time reacting every time I’m insulted or misunderstood. If Gary wants to discuss science instead of getting involved in flame wars, here’s a simple tip– DISCUSS SCIENCE, ALREADY.

In my experience, posters here who ask polite questions about evolution are inundated with helpful responses. Try it some time, Gary. (Unless, of course, you’re more interested in being flamed so you can play the Christian martyr.)

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by PvM published on November 2, 2007 10:33 PM.

Dumbest Attack on Genetic Algorithms. Ever. was the previous entry in this blog.

Allen MacNeill: RM & NS: The Creationist and ID Strawman 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