A Blood Libel on Our Civilization

The irony of this is mind-boggling.

Maybe this movie is actually an example of Voltaire’s prayer?

I think this willful act of deception has corrupted creationism irredeemably.

That is certainly corrupting, but I suggest the corruption began when they first started deceiving themselves regarding the nature of reality.

Nevermind, they’re all back again. (Sorry for the pollution.)

I just emailed the John Derbyshire the Youtube video “Why do People Hate Creationists p 24” the one where Stein says that “science leads to killing people”.

Can’t wait for more conservatives to rip Stein a new one. His career is over.

Someone should send all of Ben Stein’s verbal diarrhea to every cable news outlet’s economic and marketplace executive producers so they can see how absurd this man is. He’ll never work again.

J

It’s refreshing to see conservatives speak out against Intelligent Design. Derbyshire, Charles Krauthammer, Dinesh D’Souza, and of course John E. Jones III. Despite the influence of the Religious Right, conservatives should appreciate that watering down science threatens America’s scientific standing.

Derbyshire: “Our scientific theories are the crowning adornments of our civilization, towering monuments of intellectual effort, built from untold millions of hours of observation, measurement, classification, discussion, and deliberation. This is quite apart from their wonderful utility — from the light, heat, and mobility they give us, the drugs and the gadgets and the media. (A “thank you” wouldn’t go amiss.) Simply as intellectual constructs, our well-established scientific theories are awe-inspiring.”

Inspiring words for our children to read and ignite their interests in science.

Thank you John Derbyshire, you rock, man!!!!

Many years ago, I used to enjoy singing the hymn “Living For Jesus” (http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/l/i/livingfj.htm).

I have no desire to debase the memory of the two persons who created this rather sappy bit of piety, but I think that memory has already been debased. So herewith, the NEW! Up To DATE! first verse:

Lying for Jesus, in all that we do,
Ever deceptive, we set forth the true!
This twisty pathway entirely suits me,
Making a world that’s completely truth-free!

Reading Derbyshire’s review was a great way to end the day. Thanks!

While you are patting Mr. Derbyshire on the back, read “Prime Obsession”. You’ll become knowledgeable about a new subject in a hurry.

How does one become a conservative author while writing math books?

An excellent review by John Derbyshire; and done with the kind of bluntness needed.

It has seemed evident to me for a number of years now that the fundamentalist cults in the U.S. have become safe havens for some of the nastiest con men in existence. The nature of fundamentalism seems to attract people who are gullible and dependent on strong personalities, no matter how psychopathic these personalities are. So when charlatans like Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, and the pack of wolves at the Discovery Institute come along with a line of patter that makes bad religion look “respectable” and “upscale”, pliable rubes line up like sheep.

Perhaps G.W. Bush has at least done us a favor in demonstrating just what a mess this fundamentalist thinking can generate when it gets hold of political power and starts subverting truth to sectarian ideology. The number of blinkering psychotics who have been emboldened to come out of the woodwork during this administration is pretty alarming. And they want to take over society at every level.

Hopefully voters won’t be so complacent in upcoming elections. These fundamentalist IDiots gunning for power are seriously dangerous people. The trolls who show up here on Panda’s Thumb seem to be fairly representative of paranoid mental illness mixed with fundamentalism and pseudo-science, and they seem no longer to have any concept of decent ethical standards.

It’s time for a good house cleaning. These ID/Creationists are not nice people, and they need to be exposed as the sleaze balls they really are. No more courtesy for them; they only take advantage of courtesy to advance their agenda.

Wonderful.

Creationists will of course dismiss this since Derbyshire admits he has not seen the movie.

Did Krauthammer comment on the movie? Anyone have a link?

Holy Shit!! Brav-fucking-O!

Amazing… I am slack-jawed at the immensity of the smack-down laid out by Derbyshire.

So much for the critics of ID-creationism being part of a “liberal conspiracy”. Give me more conservatives like Derbyshire and Judge Jones any day!

Thwack! Take THAT, Stein! Thwack! :)

I’ve finally found some data on how EXPELLED did this last weekend. From the web site Box Office Mojo: Dropped to 13^th from 10^th the week before, dropped to $1,394,940 (down 53%), with a grand total of $5,297,860. Let’s hope that the half-life of this thing turns out to be 1 week.

It is no doubt true that for careful, deliberate argument, logical analysis and the cool light of reason one should read good liberal commentators. Nevertheless, when it comes to thunderous, righteous, furious condemnation, root, branch and the horse you rode in on, nothing can match an outraged conservative. Bravo, Derbyshire.

Bobby, you seem so interested in bickering with others that you haven’t addressed my post, so here it is again:

For my part, I believe the following from Wikipedia answers pretty well:

Creationism From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Creationism is a religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) or deities, whose existence is presupposed.[1] In relation to the creation-evolution controversy the term creationism (or strict creationism) is commonly used to refer to religiously-motivated rejection of evolution.

Such beliefs include young Earth creationism, which takes Book of Genesis literally, while Old Earth creationism accepts geological findings but rejects evolution. The term theistic evolution has been coined to refer to beliefs in creation which are more compatible with the scientific view of evolution and the age of the Earth.

Creationism in the West is usually based on creation according to Genesis, and in its broad sense covers a wide range of beliefs and interpretations. Through the 19^th century the term most commonly referred to direct creation of individual souls, in contrast to traducianism. However, by 1929 in the United States the term became particularly associated with Christian fundamentalist opposition to human evolution and belief in a young Earth.[2] Several U.S. states passed laws against the teaching of evolution in public schools, as upheld in the Scopes Trial. Evolution was omitted entirely from school textbooks in much of the United States until the 1960s. Since then, renewed efforts to introduce teaching creationism in American public schools in the form of flood geology, creation science, and intelligent design have been consistently held to contravene the constitutional separation of Church and State by a succession of legal judgements.[3] The meaning of the term creationism was contested, but by the 1980s it had been co-opted by proponents of creation science and flood geology.[2]

When scientific research produces conclusions which contradict a creationist interpretation of scripture, the strict creationist approach is either to reject the conclusions of the research,[4] its underlying scientific theories,[5] or its methodology.[6] For this reason, both creation science and intelligent design have been labeled as pseudoscience by the mainstream scientific community.[7] The most notable disputes concern the effects of evolution on the development of living organisms, the idea of common descent, the geologic history of the Earth, the formation of the solar system, and the origin of the universe.[8][9][10][11]

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

A more detailed discussion can be found here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html

And another good treatment of the subject: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/creationism/

I doubt that anyone here would dispute the definitions/descriptions above.

Does the above seem acceptable to you?

dpr

D P Robin said:

Bobby, you seem so interested in bickering with others that you haven’t addressed my post, so here it is again:

For my part, I believe the following from Wikipedia answers pretty well:

Creationism From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Creationism is a religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) or deities, whose existence is presupposed.[1] In relation to the creation-evolution controversy the term creationism (or strict creationism) is commonly used to refer to religiously-motivated rejection of evolution.

Such beliefs include young Earth creationism, which takes Book of Genesis literally, while Old Earth creationism accepts geological findings but rejects evolution. The term theistic evolution has been coined to refer to beliefs in creation which are more compatible with the scientific view of evolution and the age of the Earth.

Creationism in the West is usually based on creation according to Genesis, and in its broad sense covers a wide range of beliefs and interpretations. Through the 19^th century the term most commonly referred to direct creation of individual souls, in contrast to traducianism. However, by 1929 in the United States the term became particularly associated with Christian fundamentalist opposition to human evolution and belief in a young Earth.[2] Several U.S. states passed laws against the teaching of evolution in public schools, as upheld in the Scopes Trial. Evolution was omitted entirely from school textbooks in much of the United States until the 1960s. Since then, renewed efforts to introduce teaching creationism in American public schools in the form of flood geology, creation science, and intelligent design have been consistently held to contravene the constitutional separation of Church and State by a succession of legal judgements.[3] The meaning of the term creationism was contested, but by the 1980s it had been co-opted by proponents of creation science and flood geology.[2]

When scientific research produces conclusions which contradict a creationist interpretation of scripture, the strict creationist approach is either to reject the conclusions of the research,[4] its underlying scientific theories,[5] or its methodology.[6] For this reason, both creation science and intelligent design have been labeled as pseudoscience by the mainstream scientific community.[7] The most notable disputes concern the effects of evolution on the development of living organisms, the idea of common descent, the geologic history of the Earth, the formation of the solar system, and the origin of the universe.[8][9][10][11]

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

A more detailed discussion can be found here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html

And another good treatment of the subject: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/creationism/

I doubt that anyone here would dispute the definitions/descriptions above.

Does the above seem acceptable to you?

dpr

Why do you think I am ‘bickering’ I have treated with hostility here. These interchanges here show that to Darwinists anyone doubting in the least any part of the theory is met with hostility. Yet they muff terms and use expandable definitions.

And as far as the wiki definition goes: do you see how the term ‘creationist’ is misused here.

And Behe states he is an old earther and one poster said he really did not mean what he said.

The complete lack of integrity and logic I see here is simply awesome.

bobby said:

Why do you think I am ‘bickering’ I have treated with hostility here. These interchanges here show that to Darwinists anyone doubting in the least any part of the theory is met with hostility. Yet they muff terms and use expandable definitions.

And as far as the wiki definition goes: do you see how the term ‘creationist’ is misused here.

And Behe states he is an old earther and one poster said he really did not mean what he said.

The complete lack of integrity and logic I see here is simply awesome.

Bobby

Doubting Darwin’s theory of evolution and presenting alternative theories are more than welcomed; but they have to be backed up by evidence, scientific evidence.

Ernie said:

bobby said:

Why do you think I am ‘bickering’ I have treated with hostility here. These interchanges here show that to Darwinists anyone doubting in the least any part of the theory is met with hostility. Yet they muff terms and use expandable definitions.

And as far as the wiki definition goes: do you see how the term ‘creationist’ is misused here.

And Behe states he is an old earther and one poster said he really did not mean what he said.

The complete lack of integrity and logic I see here is simply awesome.

Bobby

Doubting Darwin’s theory of evolution and presenting alternative theories are more than welcomed; but they have to be backed up by evidence, scientific evidence.

OK thats fair. Tell me what you think is the strongest scientific evidence for Darwinism.

Stanton said:

bobby said:

Ernie said:

Bobby

Doubting Darwin’s theory of evolution and presenting alternative theories are more than welcomed; but they have to be backed up by evidence, scientific evidence.

OK thats fair. Tell me what you think is the strongest scientific evidence for Darwinism.

If you actually had any sincere interest in learning, you would have learned that “Darwinism” is used only by scientific scholars who refer to the ideas on Biology held by Charles Darwin, himself, and his friends and followers, and by Creationists and other anti-evolutionists in order to suggest that those who accept the theory of evolution are cultists.

Having said this, the evidence Charles Darwin used included both his notes about the Galapagos Finches, as well as the comparison of the finches’ diversity with pigeon genealogies (if you ever bothered to read about Darwin, you would have known that he was an avid pigeon breeder).

More evidence has accumulated since Darwin’s day, and continues to accumulate as we speak, including fossil and genetic evidence that places the ancestry of whales somewhere within the even-toed ungulates, the discovery and examination of thousands of fossil taxa, including trilobites, brachiopods, ammonites, mesonychids, brontotheres, and hominids, and the discovery and observations of speciation events, including the repopulation of Lake Tanganyika by cichlids, the speciation of the apple maggot fly amongst fruit orchards in Eastern North America, and the speciation event in nautiluses in the Indo-Pacific.

All of this evidence is readily available in Google, and in libraries, and the fact that you demand that we provide evidence of Darwinism Evolution, rather than attempt to find it yourself suggests that you are probably just a troll trying to pick fights.

Well Dawkins said that he ‘discovered Darwinism’ as a child. And Gould talks about ‘Darwinism’ The problem is that the terms Darwinism, evolution, Neo-Darwinism, Modern Synthetic theory etc are not synomymous.

OK I will make a temp term to refer to the assertion that humans came from fish thru natural selection without and intelligent intervention. OK for our time here we can call it fish-human-ns theory or FHN for short.

Now tell me how if the FHN theory is true or not would have an effect on the development of anti-biotics. Anti-biotic adaptation fits well in kinds theory. A person could belive in young-earth and do effective research in anti-biotics.

And also just because there are occasional very minimal speciation does not prove the FHN theory.

You mean a person only has to “prove” three hundred million years of evolution in an internet post? Well at least you didn’t ask for four billion. The evidence that life evolved is essentially everything we know about it, including genetics, anatomy, development and of course fossils. No doubt someone will offer some of the specifics, and no matter what it is, Bobby will say that it doesn’t “prove” anything to him, so life must not have have evolved after all. Bobby, have you considered doing your own studying?

Bobby said:

OK I will make a temp term to refer to the assertion that humans came from fish thru natural selection without and intelligent intervention. OK for our time here we can call it fish-human-ns theory or FHN for short.

Try MET - Modern Evolutionary Theory.

Now tell me how if the FHN theory is true or not would have an effect on the development of anti-biotics. Anti-biotic adaptation fits well in kinds theory.

There is no kinds theory. There is a kinds hypothesis with no factual basis, and for which there is no experimental work done. Worse yet, there is more genetic variation among bacteria than there is between humans and the other apes. So if you are going to claim bacteria are all of one kind, you also have to consider humans and chimps one kind.

And also just because there are occasional very minimal speciation does not prove the FHN theory.

The overwhelming evidence from genetics, fossils, the nested heirarchies, and most tellingly, the duplicated mistakes, like our backwards wired eyes, and the fusion of chimp chromosomes that makes up human chromosome #2 more or less prove it, inasmuch as one can speak of any science being proved. Oh, and don’t neglect the macroevolution that has been observed. This can all be found on Talkorigins. It is silly to ask these questions here when they are listed in easy-to-find places on the net.

So let me put it this way: what is your strongest proof that humans came from fish without intelligent intervention.

You have reversed the burdon of proof here. If you claim an intelligence was involved, then the burdon is on you to show evidence for the who, what, when, and how of the process. Your critics have no more burdon to disprove a designer than we do to disprove the tooth fairy.

Here’s a question for you Bobby: Why is it that every single land animal over 2 pounds has at most four limbs, two eyes, 2 ears, one nose, one mouth, one anus, all positioned in relatively exactly the same places? Why don’t we have 6 legged horses, or cats with wings, or a 10 nosed dog, or owls with 4 eyes? Why doesn’t a single knee in the macro-animal kingdom bend the other way?

bobby said:

OK your definition of creationist is someone who believes it is impossible for life to have developed to its present condition by natural processes alone??

No, Bobby. Do not put words into my mouth (or, figuratively, my keyboard).

In my experience, creationists insist that some scripture-based interpretation of mankind’s history is correct despite evidence to the contrary.

In Behe’s case, all that he claims is that natural processes (such as Darwinian natural selection coupled to descent with modification) alone are not enough (whereas the evidence indicates that natural processes alone are indeed enough to generate the biological diversity and the patterns of similarity that we see).

In the case of a classical YEC, they insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis (although there seems to be some equivocation about whether Gen 1 trumps Gen 2).

A typical OEC might accept an old earth, but insist on independent special creation of “kinds” of organisms.

The one over-riding similarity, Bobby (hey, are you paying attention here?!?) is the denial of evidence. In short, a creationist, in my experience, is someone who refuses to accept reality the way it is, and insists that their own version of it is more accurate than reality as we find it. Which is, of course, nonsensical.

bobby said:

Nigel D said:

Bobby Wrote:

Your ignorance is showing:

“As commonly understood, creationism involves belief in an earth formed only about ten thousand years ago, an interpretation of the Bible that is still very popular. For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it.” (Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box, pg 5)

Right, Bobby, and since we know that Behe is a creationist who is preetending not to be a creationist, this is convincing how, exactly??

You really are utterly clueless if you think your pathetic attempt at a rejoinder will convince anyone of anything except your own inability to construct an argument.

BTW, Bobby, I’m still being factual here. Your own posts prove your ineptness and ignorance.

Actually YOUR post is complete hogwash.

But you still have no answer for my arguments. I am sure the lurkers are all very impressed that you have now resorted to name-calling as your principle line of argument.

Bobby the disingenuous Wrote:

Well Dawkins said that he ‘discovered Darwinism’ as a child. And Gould talks about ‘Darwinism’

And, if you bothered to pay attention, you would notice that this term is only ever used in a casual sense. “Darwinism” has no technical meaning. If you wish to use a term to cover the explanations of the patterns of similarity and diversity that we observe in nature, try “evolutionary theory” or “modern evolutionary theory” (MET).

The problem is that the terms Darwinism, evolution, Neo-Darwinism, Modern Synthetic theory etc are not synomymous.

And why should they be? They have different meanings.

But arguing over terminology is irrelevant to the way reality is. If you truly wish to learn more, why care what it is called?

OK I will make a temp term to refer to the assertion that humans came from fish thru natural selection without and intelligent intervention. OK for our time here we can call it fish-human-ns theory or FHN for short.

So, FHN is a trawman argument. Here’s why:

You state that it is asserted that humans came from fish. This is technically true but misleading. Humans and modern fish share a common ancestor, as do all vertebrates. These ancestors were aquatic and possessed certain features that would classify them as fish, but they did not resemble modern fish any more than that. This is not an assertion, but a conclusion.

You state that it is asserted that this occurred without intelligent intervention, but this is arse-about-face. Logically, one should assume that the simplest way in which something could have occurred is the best explanation, unless evidence exists to the contrary.

Additionally, we know of natural processes that can bring about a great deal of biological change, and we know of no mechanism that can limit these processes. So, why should we doubt that these processes did operate?

Finally, we should not assume that intelligent intervention is necessary unless we have evidence to indicate this to be so. This would indeed be an extraordinary claim, and it would require extraordinary evidence to convince anyone.

Now tell me how if the FHN theory is true or not would have an effect on the development of anti-biotics. Anti-biotic adaptation fits well in kinds theory. A person could belive in young-earth and do effective research in anti-biotics.

This paragraph is pretty much meaningless. It would take so long to point out where your ignorance is showing that I simply can’t be bothered. Your education is not the responsibility of anyone here.

Since several of us have pointed out that your education is deficient, it is your job to either accept this or fix it. there are people who post here who really do know all about this stuff.

And also just because there are occasional very minimal speciation does not prove the FHN theory.

Irrelevant.

bobby said:

Ernie said:

bobby said:

Why do you think I am ‘bickering’ I have treated with hostility here. These interchanges here show that to Darwinists anyone doubting in the least any part of the theory is met with hostility. Yet they muff terms and use expandable definitions.

And as far as the wiki definition goes: do you see how the term ‘creationist’ is misused here.

And Behe states he is an old earther and one poster said he really did not mean what he said.

The complete lack of integrity and logic I see here is simply awesome.

Bobby

Doubting Darwin’s theory of evolution and presenting alternative theories are more than welcomed; but they have to be backed up by evidence, scientific evidence.

OK thats fair. Tell me what you think is the strongest scientific evidence for Darwinism.

Do you mean you haven’t read about all the evidence from genetics, the fossil record, geology, strains of super-bacteria, anthropology, paleontology, and many, many more disciplines of science? How, then, can you come here and present alternatives to a theory you haven’t study well enough? I suggest, as a starting point, that you read “Evolution: What the fossils Say and Why it Matters” by Donald R. Prothero.

For God’s sake, evolve!

In my important role of presenting truth and balance in opposition to the ignorant evolander screeds, illogical proposals, and unsubstantiated claims posted in behalf of their beloved theory I suggest a through reading of Berlinski’s shredding of Dunkelturd’s uninformed screed.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?[…];w=MQ==#more

Every time one of these DI guys match up with an evolander I am quite entertained just watching the evolanders butt being chewed into small pieces and straining to hear their last wimperings.

Flint said:

Poe’s Law strikes again.

Are you referring to “keith” or to Berlinski?

Or both?

keith said:

Every time one of these DI guys match up with an evolander I am quite entertained just watching the evolanders butt being chewed into small pieces and straining to hear their last wimperings.

[italic mine]

He’s such a good Christian. Probably get wood at the thought of all his enemies burning in Hell.…