Letter from Holland

| 87 Comments

I just received the following letter from Holland:

Yesterday 3 Feb, the Dutch evangelical, TV presentator and former director of the Evangelical Broadcast Organisation (EO), Andries Knevel, openly rejected his belief in Young Earth Creationism and ID. He apologised for promoting those beliefs in the past years to his children and the public. He wants credibility, reliability and belief. He desires an open debate about God and evolution with believers and non-believers alike. He believes GOD and evolution do not exclude each other. Both science and belief have their own value. He still belief that God created heaven and earth en that Jezus is our Saviour.

On July 27 2007 it was discovered and documented http://evolutie.blog.com/1962396/ that the EO censored all evolution and old earth from the BBC documentaries of David Attenborough. Now the EO no longer denies it was censorship indeed by showing fragments they censored in the past years. This is a remarkable breakthrough and conversion. Especially hopeful in the Darwinyear 2009. There are still YEC’s in Holland, but the main evangelical television station has made a very promising move.

Gert Korthof

87 Comments

Gert Korthof, steadfastly holding down the fort in the Netherlands!

Cheers – MrG / http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

Mark,

It’s probably appropriate that someone from the Netherlands - which has shown historically ample religious and intellectual tolerance for centuries - admit his mistakes in promoting both Young Earth Creationism and Intelligent Design Creationism. Regrettably it is probably too much to ask for similar candor from our own creationists, especially those of the Intelligent Design flavor.

Thanks for posting this.

Appreciatively yours,

John

“Jezus is our Saviour” - is that a typo or is that due to some alternate spelling corresponding to the writer’s native language?

Joshua Zelinsky said:

“Jezus is our Saviour” - is that a typo or is that due to some alternate spelling corresponding to the writer’s native language?

Jesus is spelled “Jezus” in dutch.

Tom, thanks. I suspected something like that.

It would be interesting to know the back story of the Knevel’s “conversion” – such tales tend to very intriguing, Dean Morton’s humorous essay on his own change of heart is a good example. Alas all the pages I find on “Andries Knevel” are in Dutch – I checked Korthof’s site as well and came up zeroes.

Cheers – MrG / http://gvgpd.proboards.com

Sounds like good news to me! :-)

Wow! Now if we could only get a prominent American evangelical leader to do the same. It won’t be one of the “old guard” like Pat Robertson and James Dobson. Rick Warren? It would be nice, but I doubt it. Richard Cizik? He was willing to talk with scientists in a collegial manner, but he already had his nose bloodied for his views on climate change. I’m hoping it will be one of the younger people who, like Cizik, promoted the “creation care” movement, like David Kuo, once they’ve had time to develop some gravitas.

mrg(iml8) Wrote:

Dean Morton’s humorous essay on his own change of heart is a good example.

I think you mean Glenn Morton. Watching too many Rat Pack movies, perhaps? ;-)

Frank J said:

mrg(iml8) Wrote:

Dean Morton’s humorous essay on his own change of heart is a good example.

I think you mean Glenn Morton. Watching too many Rat Pack movies, perhaps? ;-)

Actually, Glenn and Dean are the same person: he just changed his name twenty years ago to fool the herds of rabid groupies.

Hmm - the publicity page for his book on the EO website refers to his conversion from creationism to intelligent design. The blurb says that ID scientists accept macro-evolution and an old universe, but that they see irreduceably complex traits as pointing to intelligence. He now accepts an old earth, and attributes the young-earth error to the influence of American fundamentalism in the 60s and 70s (in which EO was complicit).

Ahh, the Evil Atheist Conspiracy™ mind control drugs are working. We can now start mass production and the release into the American water systems.

Stanton said:

Actually, Glenn and Dean are the same person: he just changed his name twenty years ago to fool the herds of rabid groupies.

WHOA! Did my brain skip a 20-year-track! Dean Morton was a bigwig when I was at Hewlett-Packard. Hadn’t even remembered him in years but somehow my fingers recollected him. (I had to think: “Dean Morton? Where did I get that … OH.”)

Cheers – MrG / http://www.vectorsite.html/gblog.html

simea mirans Wrote:

Hmm - the publicity page for his book on the EO website refers to his conversion from creationism to intelligent design. The blurb says that ID scientists accept macro-evolution and an old universe, but that they see irreduceably complex traits as pointing to intelligence.

If that’s true, they just misunderstand American ID, which rejects macrovolution and does not “officially” accept any particular age of universe/earth/life. Most individual IDers accept the mainstream science chronology, but allow YECs in their big tent. Note that even Michael Behe, who repeatedly admitted common descent, also rejects “macroevolution,” preferring “front loading” and maybe “saltation.”

It would be interesting to know the back story of the Knevel’s “conversion.”

I agree. I think there’s some serious gaps yet to be filled–at least for English-speakers–in terms of finding out exactly why Knevel reportedly rejects YEC and ID.

(And also in terms of finding out exactly what Knevel’s current position is now.)

FL

FL said:

It would be interesting to know the back story of the Knevel’s “conversion.”

I agree. I think there’s some serious gaps yet to be filled–at least for English-speakers–in terms of finding out exactly why Knevel reportedly rejects YEC and ID.

(And also in terms of finding out exactly what Knevel’s current position is now.)

FL

Trying to find a way to disqualify Knevel as a Christian, are we, FL?

‘Andries Knevel noemt zijn huidige overtuiging “iets tussen ID en TE” (Theïstische Evolutie)’

Seems he now goes for a position between Intelligent Design and Theistic Evolution.

Some background on Andries Knevel, mostly based on reports in the orthodox protestant daily newspapers Nederlands Dagblad (more or less evangelical) and Reformatorisch Dagblad (utter Calvinist). And from the local version of the ID debate.

Andries Knevel has come to trust Cees Dekker as his spokesman on evolution.

Cees Dekker is professor nanophysics at Delft Technical University; his research is on molecular motors, that is, on how a flagellum physically works. Dekker is a very good scientist, member of the Academy of Science, and winner of the major national science price. Dekker is an evangelical Christian. Dekker was born and raised in a main stream protestant church that does not make a problem about evolution since 1957. In 1957, the zoology professor at the protestant university VU published a book ‘Creatie en Evolutie’, advocating a position that would in present day terms be called theistic evolution. Young Dekker was influenced by a series inspired or coordinated by the US Institute for Creation Research and broadcast in the Netherlands on Evangelical Broadcasting (EO) around 1977. Dekker realized that creationism did not hang together. Evolution was for him out of the question, as evolution was identified with Dawkins. Then his contacts at Delft University pointed him to Behe. Dekker swallowed Behe’s propaganda treatise. In his public lecture at his appointment as full professor, in 2000, Dekker advocated Intelligent Design, the Behe version. Few people noticed at the time, but Dekker found two congenial spirits (a high minded not traditionally religious professor of mathematics and a Reformed professor of philosophy), and went on a lecturing and publishing tour about ID. This resulted in moderate upheaval; some high profile people in Dutch science opposed. Moreover, Dekker met biologists on his lecturing tour, or at any science meeting, and got told that he didn’t know anything whatever about biology and clearly had omitted to read any biology book. Another point was that he met evolutionary biologists – he had never asked any of them an opinion before starting on his lecturing tour – and realized they were no atheist firebrands. Dekker etc edited four books, in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, each containing writings by scientists and theologians. The first book is pro ID, and mouths a lot of copied internet creationist classics. The last book is by scientists that are Christian, and shows the classical position on religion-science, easiest compared to Gould’s, Three points seem to have swayed Dekker. Dekker attended an ID congress in Prague in 2005 or 2006, and might have found something he was not used to at a science congress. In 2005, the biweekly newspaper of the Dutch biologists gave Dekker a full page to explain how he would test Intelligent Design in a scientific way, what were the experiments suggested by it. Moreover, at the Academy of Science, Dekker was persistently asked how Intelligent Design worked. Over time and the books, Dekker became a theistic evolutionist. As far as I can find from interviews and newspaper articles about him, this was because he did not see a scientific way that ID could work. Moreover, I’ve been told Dekker went to a workshop ‘religion and science’ in England, with Francis Collins and Simon Conway Morris as speakers. Andries Knevel followed Dekker in his shift to theistic evolution. It is not clear what Knevel exactly knows about evolution.

Andries Knevel is a very influential broadcaster in evangelical circles. The major evangelical monthly has just embraced theistic evolution. The science editor of the Nederlands Dagblad (more or less evangelical) is publishing a theistic evolution book. Tuesday (3 Feb 2009) night’s broadcast must have been shocking for at least half of the membership of Evangelical Broadcasting.

Anyway, the opposition to evolution seems now reduced to the utter Calvinist wing of the church. Unfortunately, this wing now tends to rely on the local chapter of Answers-in-Genesis.

Thank you, Gerdien de Jong. This is a fascinating story. Do you happen to know if this received much mainstream media attention in the Netherlands or is this being mostly ignored?

Talking of flagella, which came first, the sperm or the ovum? How come they evolved pari passu?

Let’s suppose the Netherlands has three quality newspapers. In two of them (Volkskrant and NRC) I’ve not found anything. The third (Trouw, morning paper) has a mainstream protestant signature, and brought Tuesday night’s broadcasted change of heart as the main news on its domestic news page.

http://www.trouw.nl/nieuws/religie-[…]_Omroep.html

It looks like the attention is growing. The biggest Dutch newspaper (De Telegraaf)is also bringing the news and it has also reached the main public news broadcaster (NOS).

A reason is that members of the EO have complained about Andries Knevel and his point of view.

They have now stated on their website that it is the private opinion of mr. Knevel, because for the EO their mission is still: God is Creator, Jesus Saviour.

to be continued…

Gerdien de Jong said:

Anyway, the opposition to evolution seems now reduced to the utter Calvinist wing of the church. Unfortunately, this wing now tends to rely on the local chapter of Answers-in-Genesis.

Hmm, this is interesting – about a week ago I had a Dutch Darwin-basher give me flak on email over my evo science writings. I wonder if he’s in a state of “cognitive dissonance” right now?

I was always thinking that a high-profile defector from the US ID camp would be devastating to their cause. The experience in the Netherlands strongly bears that out.

Cheers – MrG / http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

Gerdien de Jong has given a truly excellent summary of the evangelical turmoil caused by the creationist-ID debate that was triggered by the nanologist Cees Dekker in 2005. Following the case from a safe distance (as a cognitive scientist interested in the dynamics of ‘world views’) I can fully endorse her account. Especially the four successive volumes she mentions, in which Dekker gradually retracts from his early orthodox ID position make fascinating reading. When the first ID-saturated volume appeared ID quickly became a political issue because the then Minister of Education and Science became convinced that ID ought to be introduced in the school curriculum, especially because it might bring mutual understanding between believers of different creeds. It was then that the Royal Academy of Arts and Sciences awoke and – in a few months time – organized a symposium “Weten en/of Geloven” (Knowing and/or Believing). Dekker was (not surprisingly) one of the speakers but (surprisingly) did not even mention ID or its implications. Incidentally, his current position regarding the relation between religion and science (not just evolution) seems to be that both are after the same truths but in a different way, a position that has been approved in public by the present Prime Minister (politics again). Andries Knevel, although influential if not revered as the flagship of evangelical radio and TV, is seen by many others as a somewhat comical character. His recent statement, however, will in my opinion earn him a lot of respect (Gert Korthof was one of the first to acknowledge that)… Unsurprisingly, the hard-core fundamentalist wing of his organization views things differently: the national radio news bulletin at 1300h local time (1200h GMT) today, made mention of “serious objections” raised by followers of that faction in the Evangelical movement. To be continued indefinitely, I presume.

Gerdien de Jong:

Thanks for the clarification!

Strangebrew:

TEs and IDers may personally believe the same account of natural history, but it’s how they explain it to others that makes a universe of difference. There is no middle ground.

FL:

I guess de Jong answered your question. Since you mention “gaps,” it seems that Knevel once thought that “gaps” were an excuse to deny mainstream science (as IDers do), but now apparently agrees (as TEs do) that that’s not how to do science or gain knowledge.

Sorry, I can’t resist a bad joke: So to you he now must be “Evil Knevel” ;-)

Frank J said:

Sorry, I can’t resist a bad joke: So to you he now must be “Evil Knevel” ;-)

I managed to hold out on that one myself …

On Dutch tolerance – I recall the old comic THE FREAK BROTHERS IN AMSTERDAM, in which the hippie threesome get thrown out of the Netherlands: “We Dutch are very tolerant people. We can stand anything but a tourist with no money.”

Cheers – MrG / http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

Frank J said:

FL:

I guess de Jong answered your question. Since you mention “gaps,” it seems that Knevel once thought that “gaps” were an excuse to deny mainstream science (as IDers do), but now apparently agrees (as TEs do) that that’s not how to do science or gain knowledge.

Sorry, I can’t resist a bad joke: So to you he now must be “Evil Knevel” ;-)

After all, remember that FL specifically stated that Christians are not allowed to simultaneously accept the facts of evolution AND Jesus Christ.

With the sole exception of the Pope.

Stanton said:

With the sole exception of the Pope.

But he’s the ANTICHRIST!

Cheers – MrG / http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

Frank J:

Gerdien De Jong’s account helps out greatly, as you suggested.

By the term “gaps”, however, I meant gaps in the story of Knevel’s conversion (prior to De Jong’s material), not the phrase “god of the gaps.”

***

Stanton:

After all, remember that FL specifically stated that Christians are not allowed to simultaneously accept the facts of evolution AND Jesus Christ.

With the sole exception of the Pope.

Sorry Stanton, it seems you have taken to outright lying again. Or maybe you’re trying too hard to make a joke, hmm. No need to respond further in either case!

FL :)

Frank J said:

simea mirans Wrote:

Hmm - the publicity page for his book on the EO website refers to his conversion from creationism to intelligent design. The blurb says that ID scientists accept macro-evolution and an old universe, but that they see irreduceably complex traits as pointing to intelligence.

If that’s true, they just misunderstand American ID, which rejects macrovolution and does not “officially” accept any particular age of universe/earth/life. Most individual IDers accept the mainstream science chronology, but allow YECs in their big tent. Note that even Michael Behe, who repeatedly admitted common descent, also rejects “macroevolution,” preferring “front loading” and maybe “saltation.”

Yeah, I wonder if “macro” is just a typo for “micro” on the EO site.

Stanton said:

Just Bob said:

Yo, novparl, I ain’t no biologist, but I’ve heard of conjugation: 2 bacterial cells uniting to mix & match genes. Neither is a “sperm” or “egg,” yet that sounds to me like an evolutionary precursor to the sexual reproduction of “higher” organisms. I’m bettin’ the answer to your snively question is “neither.”

(Resident biologists, please correct any gross misconceptions.)

Bacterial conjugation is different from eukaryotic conjugation, in that, in the former, once conjugation is over, the two cells go their separate ways, while in the latter, both cells (sometimes gametes, sometimes not, depending on which phyla/kingdom) cease their original functions/lifestyles/existence as the new zygote forms. Or, in the case of ciliated protists, the fused pair then undergoes mitosis into 4 new offspring.

Thanks, Stanton. Is there any thought that possibly bacterial conjugation is in some sense an evolutionary precursor to eukaryotic sex? Or did the latter arise completely separately?

Just Bob said:

Is there any thought that possibly bacterial conjugation is in some sense an evolutionary precursor to eukaryotic sex? Or did the latter arise completely separately?

As far as I know, bacterial conjugation is distinct from eukaryotic sex, in that sex in bacteria (i.e., genetic information exchange) is not a prerequisite for reproduction like it is in eukaryotes. Reproduction in bacteria occurs via fission, in that the original bacterium either splits in two or buds off daughter cells after replicating the original genome a couple of times (or however many times it feels like).

On the other hand, bacterial conjugation does lead to lateral gene transfer, even with eukaryotes, especially if the bacterium in question lives in close association with the eukaryote in question.

Stanton said:

On the other hand, bacterial conjugation does lead to lateral gene transfer, even with eukaryotes, especially if the bacterium in question lives in close association with the eukaryote in question.

Interesting – are there specific known cases of lateral gene transfer between prokaryotes and eukaryotes? Have they ever been seen in multicellular eukaryotes? My usual notion of lateral gene transfer in multicellular eukaryotes is germ-line retroviral infection, but it doesn’t seem unreasonable that a bacterium might not try to stick a plasmid to a eukaryotic cell.

It must be conceded that the origins of sex have their mysteries, but the wild variations on the theme of sexual reproduction – see Olivia Judson’s DOCTOR TATIANA for an amusing read – hardly suggest Design.

Now I look at that comment above and wonder: WHY oh WHY do I have this feeling that it’s going to be quote-mined, with everything after the comma discarded?

Cheers – MrG / http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

mrg (iml8) said:

Stanton said:

On the other hand, bacterial conjugation does lead to lateral gene transfer, even with eukaryotes, especially if the bacterium in question lives in close association with the eukaryote in question.

Interesting – are there specific known cases of lateral gene transfer between prokaryotes and eukaryotes? Have they ever been seen in multicellular eukaryotes? My usual notion of lateral gene transfer in multicellular eukaryotes is germ-line retroviral infection, but it doesn’t seem unreasonable that a bacterium might not try to stick a plasmid to a eukaryotic cell.

Off the top of my head, the bacterium Agriobacterium utilizes (bacterial) conjugation to cause tumors or galls to form in the roots and or leaves of its (plant) host.

It maybe that the termites gained their ability to secrete cellulase enzyme from their prokaryote symbiotes (or the prokaryotic symbiotes of their protist symbiotes), but I’m not sure.

novparl Wrote:

Frank J - I’ll keep this brief in case it disappears/is censored again. When? Dunno. How? By design. By Whom? Dunno - not the God of the Bible. May even be by gods (a committee? that’d explain a few things.)

Now - which came 1st - the sperm or the ovum?

As for sperm/ovum, I’ll tentatively go with mainstream science’s answer. As I scientist, I know that if a real scientist has a different idea, he will test it, and reject it if not sufficiently supported by evidence. A real scientist will not avoid testing and whine about being “expelled.”

Meanwhile, thanks for telling us that the designer is not the God of the Bible. Not sure why you are so sure of that, yet cannot give us even a wild guess about “when” any designs were actuated, but I hope you have challenged anti-evolution groups with your unorthodox opinion. Have you?

FL said:

For now, please notice the difference between the two statements you’ve made in this thread.

FL specifically stated that Christians are not allowed to simultaneously accept the facts of evolution AND Jesus Christ. With the sole exception of the Pope.

You’ve repeatedly claimed that acceptance of evolution is totally incompatible with Christianity.

Your first statement about me is both inaccurate and misleading.

Your second statement about me is accurate, and it is not misleading.

My curiosity has gotten the better of me, FL: what are the True Christian faiths, in your opinion? Catholics, mainline Protestants, and Mormons would seem to be disqualified. I’m guessing you’re a fan of the Southern Baptist Convention, but if memory serves you mentioned a bishop. Alas, I can never keep the Protestant denominations straight.

Frank J. “Tentatively”? You’re meant to be sure & fundamentalist, like the others. I suspect you have slight doubts! Thoughtcrime! Have looked up (An)Isogamy on Wikip. Can anyone point out the word “evolution” in either (paragraph no., please)?

I’ll do a deal with you all. Someone write a couple of paras on the evolution of sperm & ovum and insert it into the Wikip articles. Then tell P’s Thumb and I’ll go and read them. After all, ya do believe you can only understand biology thru evolution, doncha? Specially in the year of Our Saviour (Darwin.)

novparl said:

I’ll do a deal with you all. Someone write a couple of paras on the evolution of sperm & ovum and insert it into the Wikip articles. Then tell P’s Thumb and I’ll go and read them. After all, ya do believe you can only understand biology thru evolution, doncha? Specially in the year of Our Saviour (Darwin.)

Please demonstrate how to understand biology without evolution, and please demonstrate who reveres Charles Darwin as a messianic “savior.”

novparl Wrote:

Frank J. “Tentatively”?

Yes, as in subject to replacement with a better explanation if you or anyone else has one. But you don’t. And every time you spin an argument-from-incredulity and run away from stating, much less testing, your alternative, you effectively argue in favor of the prevailing explanation.

So keep running. I suggest getting some pointers from the DI. They are much better at it than you are.

Novpari,

I’ll do a deal with you. Go read the Evolution of Sex by John Maynard Smith. Then maybe someone will want to discuss the topic with you.

By the way, this is just the first hit if you goggle “evolution of sex”. There are 12 and a half million more hits, including Sex and Evolution by Williams. You have a lot of cartching up to do. The old tired “they both had to evolve simultaneously” isn’t going to fool anyone anymore.

Oh and Darwin is no “savior”, never was, never will be, never wanted to be, never claimed to be. Do try to remember the difference between science and religion.

DS said:

Oh and Darwin is no “savior”, never was, never will be, never wanted to be, never claimed to be.

He was just a man whose circumstances went beyond his control. Oh wait, that was Kilroy.…

DS Wrote:

I’ll do a deal with you. Go read the Evolution of Sex by John Maynard Smith. Then maybe someone will want to discuss the topic with you.

I hope that your goal of that deal is to make new readers aware of how anti-evolutionists operate. If they do read such material it will be only to quote mine and more effectively misrepresent evolution. Any discussion that follows will never be productive.

That’s how it is with all “kinds” of pseudoscientists in a pseudoscience-addicted world. Like it or not, they have convinced most people that the onus is always on mainstream science to provide explanations, while the pseudoscientist is exempt from stating, much less testing, any alternative they might have. Adding fuel to the fire is the fact that real scientists prefer - and ought to prefer - developing their explanation and defending it to the public instead of correcting pseudoscientists who’s only job is to misrepresent them.

Until we have a science-friendly culture that will always be the case.

I see no-one’s accepted my deal. Nor explained where your enthusiasm for (an)isogamy as the complete explanation has disappeared.

The Wikip art. on “Evolution of sex” doesn’t look very promising or important. Only 5 languages (incl. Lithuanian). John Maynard Smith has 13 (incl. Haitian Creole). I see JMS was a communist all thru the Stalin years (Survival-of-the-fittest years - so is Homo Sovieticus the fittest?), only leaving supposedly after the Magyar Revolution, but prob. because of Khrushchev’s denunciation of Stalin. But I’ll check it out.

I thought my little joke about Darwin your Saviour wd make you even angrier.

God prob doesn’t exist - now stop shouting and enjoy life.

God prob doesn’t exist, but you don’t accept modern evolutionary theory. What then, space aliens?

There were a number of agnostics before Darwinism. It’s not scientific to say you must have a theory on/of everything. How come existence exists? Don’t know? Then you don’t exist.

I notice no-one has pointed out the word EVOLUTION in the articles on (an)isogamy.

I guess novpari didn’t accept my deal. Pity, the Smith book probably has a good discussion of the evolution of anisogamy. I know there are dozens of articles in scientific journals on the subject. Reading Wiki wouldn’t even count for writing an undergraduate essay.

Notice that I wrote that “maybe someone” would want to discuss this with novpari once he had bothered to learn the basics. I certainly made no promise to derail the thread with off-topic discussions, nor do expect that he will ever be interested in any evidence.

Happy Darwin day!

Wikipedia doesn’t say what you want, so it’s rubbish. All those users are wrong.

I haven’t yet had time to track down JMS’s book. Typically unreasonable of an evolutionist to expect me to get hold of a book instantaneously.

Happy Darwin the Saviour’s Day!

novpari,

Keep looking for that book. I was correct, chapter nine is entitled “Anisogamy and the Sex Ratio”, it includes part C entitled “Anisogamy”. I recommend this as a starting point for studying the evolution of anisogamy. Here, I’ll get you started:

p. 151: Why do higher organisms, plant and animal, produce gametes of two different sizes? What I believe to be essentially the correct answer to the question was given by Parker, Baker and Smith (1972). Here I present their argument in a more general form, the approach was suggested by Bell (1978).

p. 155 The basic conclusion is that the primitive condition is the production of microgametes of the smallest practicable size, and that anisogamy will evolve, through invasion by macrogamete-producers, when adult size is such that it is difficult or impossible for a single motile cell to grow and differentiate into the adult form.

So, we have had a plausible answer for the evolutionary origin of anisogamy for over thirty five years now. Of course you might not feel that this treatment is sufficient. You might not think that this pathetic level of detail is satisfying. Then by all means, read all of the literature published in the last thirty years as well.

Got to go now, got to get ready. Tomorrow we offer blood sacrifices to the savior Darwin. Wait, that was the other church that does that. Oh well.

novparl said:

There were a number of agnostics before Darwinism. It’s not scientific to say you must have a theory on/of everything. How come existence exists? Don’t know? Then you don’t exist.

What does this even mean, anything?

Who’s talking about a theory of everything? What planet are you from?

Before Copernicus, there were people who didn’t believe the Earth moved. Before Kepler, mathematicians and astronomers argued over epicycles. As far as I know the knee-jerk against “Copernicanism” and “Keplerism” is pretty much over. Surely you’re not as dense as you’re pretending to be.

What we have so far is the best explanation, by people who actually, you know, know things, by doing the work.

Got something better? Put it on the table.

In the end, evolution (the fact, not the theory) does not care if you accept it or not. Maybe that’s what bothers you so much about it.

Either that or you really do think it was space aliens but you’re too ashamed or cowardly to admit it.

Two days in only ‘instantaneous’ on a geologic time scale. You know, like, compared to 4 1/2 billion years and all.

But yeah, sometimes library hours are inconvenient. Get back to us when you got some a that thar book larnin’.

The idea that we must make deals with the maliciously ignorant in order to discuss topics that the aforementioned maliciously ignorant refuse to learn about prior to the discussion is anathema to all sane persons in all cultures throughout the world.

Remember that, and that the only people who regard Charles Darwin as a “savior” or “messiah” are evolution-deniers such as yourself.

novparl said:

I see no-one’s accepted my deal. Nor explained where your enthusiasm for (an)isogamy as the complete explanation has disappeared.

fnxtr said:

Before Copernicus, there were people who didn’t believe the Earth moved. Before Kepler, mathematicians and astronomers argued over epicycles. As far as I know the knee-jerk against “Copernicanism” and “Keplerism” is pretty much over. Surely you’re not as dense as you’re pretending to be.

Technically speaking, by the time Copernicus and Kepler pop up, astronomers had already agreed that Ptolemy’s epicycles were silly: Copernicus stated that the Sun was the center of the known universe, and Kepler did Tycho Brahe’s math for him and realized that the Earth and other planets orbit the sun in circular ellipses, and not circles as originally suggested by Copernicus.

In the end, evolution (the fact, not the theory) does not care if you accept it or not. Maybe that’s what bothers you so much about it.

Novparl doesn’t care: he’s a self-admitted troll whose sole purpose here is to antagonize us, not to learn or even make the effort to discuss anything.

Well, I thought this thread was just about finished!

From JMS’s “Did Darwin get it right?” (Penguin), p.165

“Why..bother with sex?..I am not sure I know the answer.” (i.e. sex is time-consuming compared to non-sexual repro).

Since y’all know the answer, you have a DUTY to get together & publish it.

When did sex 1st become enjoyable?

Species that recombine DNA from different individuals can adapt faster to a changing environment than species that don’t have a mechanism for doing that. When the environment includes other species that also change over time, that can be a distinct advantage even if it does use a good bit of resources to accomplish.

The kick is up, the kick is … wait a minute, the goalposts have just been moved. Man too bad, that kick was going to be right through the uprights. Oh well, if you have to move the goalposts to win, I guess you don’t deserve to play the game anyway.

Way to go novpari.

P.S. Darwin Day was great.

Glad to hear it. Hope nobody spoilt it for you by mentioning Wikipedia!

I’ve now moved to the Darwinism is dead thread. Hope to see ya there.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Mark Perakh published on February 4, 2009 9:56 AM.

Collapse of a Texas Quote Mine was the previous entry in this blog.

Maiacetus 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