Evolution 2009

| 188 Comments

Evolution 2009

Prof. Steve Steve and I are currently wandering around the University of Idaho waiting for Evolution 2009 to start. And we are not alone.

188 Comments

Oh, brother. I expected an outburst from Minnich, but this is someone I hadn’t heard of before. Yikes. I just had time to glance at some of his links, but if I understand correctly, he is a creationist who accepts speciation and evolution?? I saw something about “species diversification after the Flood.” Someone please fill me in…

I’m heading over to catch the last couple days, plan to arrive Sun. eve or Mon. morning (I live within driving distance, but have other commitments this weekend). See you there.

ps. I do have to thank Todd for the link to the new antibiotic resistance article, though.

Isn’t the Moscow area a really beautiful area of the country? Stomping grounds of my family since the 1880’s.

KP said:

Oh, brother. I expected an outburst from Minnich, but this is someone I hadn’t heard of before. Yikes. I just had time to glance at some of his links, but if I understand correctly, he is a creationist who accepts speciation and evolution?? I saw something about “species diversification after the Flood.” Someone please fill me in…

I’m heading over to catch the last couple days, plan to arrive Sun. eve or Mon. morning (I live within driving distance, but have other commitments this weekend). See you there.

I’ll also be too busy the next week to participate, but your question has my intense interest, so I hope someone follows up on it. I’d like to add my own quick question: Was it Minnich himself who mentioned the Flood, or a more politically correct DI person tailoring his argument to an audience that would not be expected to challenge the “evidence” for a global flood?

To my knowledge, Paul Nelson is the only major DI person who specifically challenges common descent, and even he is careful enough to base it entirely on “weaknesses” of “Darwinism” and not on any independent evidence of separate (and recent?) origin of “kinds.” Even Johnson and Wells have, to paraphrase to several critics, left the door slightly open to common descent. What little I read of Minnich suggests that his position is closer to that of Behe. As you probably know Behe has long conceded common descent (& the ~4 billion year history of life), and just denies (or pretends to deny) that the Darwinian mechanism is insufficient to cause some biological changes. He nevertheless agrees that those changes occur in a “biological continuum” and thus do not require new origin-of-life events.

I have no clue on Behe’s position on the Flood, but I would like to know. My guess - given his admission that reading the Bible as a science text is silly - is that he would reluctantly admit that there’s no evidence for it as described in the Bible. But these days, their main commitment is to tell their target audience what they want to hear, regardless of how ridiculous it is. The DI in general has given up talking to scientists (~99.9% who have dismissed them as nonsensical at best) and seems to concentrate more on the hard-line fundamentalists.

Frank J said:

KP said:

Oh, brother. I expected an outburst from Minnich, but this is someone I hadn’t heard of before. Yikes. I just had time to glance at some of his links, but if I understand correctly, he is a creationist who accepts speciation and evolution?? I saw something about “species diversification after the Flood.” Someone please fill me in…

I’m heading over to catch the last couple days, plan to arrive Sun. eve or Mon. morning (I live within driving distance, but have other commitments this weekend). See you there.

I’ll also be too busy the next week to participate, but your question has my intense interest, so I hope someone follows up on it. I’d like to add my own quick question: Was it Minnich himself who mentioned the Flood, or a more politically correct DI person tailoring his argument to an audience that would not be expected to challenge the “evidence” for a global flood?

To my knowledge, Paul Nelson is the only major DI person who specifically challenges common descent, and even he is careful enough to base it entirely on “weaknesses” of “Darwinism” and not on any independent evidence of separate (and recent?) origin of “kinds.” Even Johnson and Wells have, to paraphrase to several critics, left the door slightly open to common descent. What little I read of Minnich suggests that his position is closer to that of Behe. As you probably know Behe has long conceded common descent (& the ~4 billion year history of life), and just denies (or pretends to deny) that the Darwinian mechanism is insufficient to cause some biological changes. He nevertheless agrees that those changes occur in a “biological continuum” and thus do not require new origin-of-life events.

I have no clue on Behe’s position on the Flood, but I would like to know. My guess - given his admission that reading the Bible as a science text is silly - is that he would reluctantly admit that there’s no evidence for it as described in the Bible. But these days, their main commitment is to tell their target audience what they want to hear, regardless of how ridiculous it is. The DI in general has given up talking to scientists (~99.9% who have dismissed them as nonsensical at best) and seems to concentrate more on the hard-line fundamentalists.

The Genesis Flood by Drs. Henry Morris and John Whitcomb would be a good start.

henry Wrote:

The Genesis Flood by Drs. Henry Morris and John Whitcomb would be a good start.

Not for the questions I had in the above comment. DI fellows like Behe and Minnich like to say that ID is not creationism (which they generally equate only with the YEC subset), but when it comes to backing it up with some critical analysis of YEC, they are strangely silent.

Frank J said:

Was it Minnich himself who mentioned the Flood, or a more politically correct DI person tailoring his argument to an audience that would not be expected to challenge the “evidence” for a global flood?

This was Todd someone-or-other from some other blog. I don’t think he’s a DI person. Check the link in Reed’s original post.

Here’s a follow-up post by the same guy. Its very brief but generally positive.

Too positive. We creationists (OEC in my evil case) must be demonised at all times. That’s the scientific method. Unless this method is followed, the number of doubters in evolution will continue to grow past the 50% mark.

10.55 Brittime

Nov writes…

Too positive. We creationists (OEC in my evil case) must be demonised at all times. That’s the scientific method.

Nope. Creationists must be asked to substantiate their claims at all times, because ID is supposed to be science, and that’s the standard the rest of the scientific community has been held to for three centuries without complaint.

That’s the scientific method, Nov.

stevaroni said:

Nov writes…

Too positive. We creationists (OEC in my evil case) must be demonised at all times. That’s the scientific method.

Nope. Creationists must be asked to substantiate their claims at all times, because ID is supposed to be science, and that’s the standard the rest of the scientific community has been held to for three centuries without complaint.

That’s the scientific method, Nov.

And then there’s the problem of how creationists and all other evolution-deniers, especially the Intelligent Design proponents, go dramatically out of their way to avoid substantiating their claims.

So is this Todd Wood guy for the most part an evolution believer but one who sort of bends the facts to support his own view of the Genesis creation? I suppose he’s an OEC?

I must admit his blog on Euginie Scott’s talk was awfully positive.

The conference ended yesterday so hopefully Reed or someone will give us poor non-attendees a summary or highlights post (hint hint…). Until then, a couple of bloggers have already posted about the conference at the conference’s blog collection.

Sorry, you’re not going to get much of a report from me. I don’t do blog journalism well. Maybe someone else took ample notes and report on the happenings at the conference.

Too big of a conference. I printed off 8 or 9 pages from the schedule of talks just for the 24 hours I was going to be there Mon-Tues.

To novparl, FL, whoisyourcreator and any other creationist lurkers: evolutionary biology is a rich, diverse field of scientific research and if the size of that scientific meeting doesn’t make you think for a second, then you are not in touch with reality.

@ Stevaroni. Nope, the scientific method is to read carefully. I said I’m an OECer, not an IDer.

KP : nope, the size of that meeting doesn’t make me think for more than 15 seconds. Evolutionists are conformist, so meeting sizes don’t mean anything. 2 million people attend the Hajj every year. So what?

The failure of evo’s to explain how long it took 100 trillion brain connections to evolve, or to even to think about it apart from childish insults, does make me think - that evolution is just empty conformity.

What do you think of Darwin’s view of women?

novparl said:

2 million people attend the Hajj every year. So what?

Good point. How many people believe creationism in all its forms? 30, 40, 50 million? So what?

@ Stevaroni. Nope, the scientific method is to read carefully. I said I’m an OECer, not an IDer.

OK, I’ll rephrase my previous comment thusly…

(V2.0) “Creationists must be asked to substantiate their claims at all times, because ID is supposed to be science, and to OEC’s, creation is supposed to be scientific fact, and that’s the standard the rest of the scientific community has been held to for three centuries without complaint.”

See, I’m quite accommodating to rational debate, Nov.

novparl said: The failure of evo’s to explain how long it took 100 trillion brain connections to evolve,

That’s a history question, not a biology one, and since we already know the historical answer, the only failure here is your failure to know what that answer is. If you’re talking specifically about the human brain, it took slightly less than 4.5 billion years. If you’re talking about any old collection of neurons of about that size, you’ll have to ask an expert; I’m sure some earlier animals had equally large skull cavities.

What do you think of Darwin’s view of women?

I think its utterly irrelevant to science, and I think bringing it up is a transparent ploy to change the subject. The topic of this thread is the Evolution 2009 conference. Do you have something to add on that subject?

novparl said: What do you think of Darwin’s view of women?

Never given it a thought. What do you think of Gish’s view of women? How is either of these relevent to Evolution 2009?

Er - relevant.

Evolutionists are conformist,

So, when scientists were arguing over punctuated equilibrium vs. more gradual models, they were “conforming”?

When some scientists added horizontal DNA transfer to the theory, they were “conforming”?

When scientists argue over the placement of taxonomic groups in the phylogenetic tree, they’re “conforming”?

Yeah, riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Henry J said:

novparl said: Evolutionists are conformist,

So, when scientists were arguing over punctuated equilibrium vs. more gradual models, they were “conforming”? …

long time lurker, here… greatly enjoy the discussions & info.

you have to admit that it’s an impenetrable argument. when scientists agree on a theory they are conforming/engaging in conspiracy/etc. when scientists disagree about some aspect of the theory, it shows that the theory is “about to fall apart.”

novparl said:

@ Stevaroni. Nope, the scientific method is to read carefully. I said I’m an OECer, not an IDer.

Which means you’ve learned to ignore scientific evidence more subtly than your YEC counterparts? I don’t understand the relevance of your position to the scientific method.

KP : nope, the size of that meeting doesn’t make me think for more than 15 seconds. Evolutionists are conformist, so meeting sizes don’t mean anything. 2 million people attend the Hajj every year. So what?

2 million people don’t have any evidence that God exists. So what?

The failure of evo’s to explain how long it took 100 trillion brain connections to evolve, or to even to think about it apart from childish insults, does make me think - that evolution is just empty conformity.

I see that being OEC doesn’t mean you can think rationally. A current lack of explanation for some biological feature implies that evolutionary biologists are prone to conformity?

That certainly appears to show you’re not doing any reasoning with regard to the scientific community. Try to explain that in an actually rational way, will ya?

What do you think of Darwin’s view of women?

Who cares? Why is Darwin’s opinion on women relevant to ANYTHING? He was a Victorian gentleman with somewhat Victorian attitudes towards women. He was ahead of the curve, of course, being a rational scientist rather than a creationist, but his opinions on social issues are no more relevant than Feynman’s feelings about bongo music.

Rational thought: ur doin’ it wrong.

As I suspected; you don’t know anything about the scientific method, do you? All creationist arguments that I’ve seen, whether YEC or OEC involve ignorance, disregard of facts, and irrational arguments. All. Would you like to try to prove me wrong? Feel free. But I warn you, you’re going to lose.

novparl said:

Too positive. We creationists (OEC in my evil case) must be demonised at all times. That’s the scientific method. Unless this method is followed, the number of doubters in evolution will continue to grow past the 50% mark.

10.55 Brittime

novparl said:

Nope, the scientific method is to read carefully.

Perhaps intended in jest.

The scientific method involves reasoning from experiment and observation. One doesn’t need to read at all.

Careful reading is the method of literary criticism.

Perhaps the reason creationists and “design proponents” make no contribution to science is that they hold this misconception: They think that science is about words, whereas in fact it is about nature.

Too many confused comments to deal with. Just a couple of points. Rilke’s Grandd. (why Rilke? Because he was sex-mad?) - of course I’ll lose. You’ll be the judge.

You don’t need to read at all? Even your notes?

As to why Darwin’s view of women matters - does the evolution of women matter? Or the evolution of mammals? No more than the evolution of the brain. You people lack, necessarily, intellectual curiosity.

12:40 pm

And he’s calling us confused? And the guy who doesn’t think he has to look outside his book for answers is telling us we lack intellectual curiosity?

Projection - it’s not just a career in movie theatres.

novparl said:

As to why Darwin’s view of women matters - does the evolution of women matter? Or the evolution of mammals? No more than the evolution of the brain. You people lack, necessarily, intellectual curiosity.

Darwin’s view of women matters to you because you seem to think that by shooting the messenger you destroy his message. This may be true of religious belief, but not of scientific discovery.

If a suicide bomber from The People’s Front of Judea had detonated himself at the last supper, the historical development of religion would have changed completely, though some of the followers of Brian and others would still be trying to discredit Darwin today. But if the Beagle had sunk with all hands leaving Plymouth Sound in 1831, other scientists would have come to the same conclusions as Darwin, and the mountains of evidence gathered from many other scientific disciplines since then mean that you would label evolutionary theory today with a different “ism”, but it would have converged on the same answer from a different direction.

I see Nonpareil is still posting his bullshit lie about “evolutionists” not being able to explain the evolution of the brain, even though there are over 1.7 million hits on scholar.google.com. Then again, all he has to offer are bullshit and malice.

Henry - if you’re still around - you’re quite right about Darwin’s racism and “sexism”. There are a few slitely honest evo’s who have protested against rewriting books to fit in with modern sensibilities. (Like Winston Smith in 1984)

GVL Geologist - what use is 1 thousandth of a wing? Or did wings evolve a half at a time? Evo-magic.

In the cases of bats, a “thousandth of a wing” is called a leg. In the case of birds, I presume it would be called an arm.

Novparl said:

what use is 1 thousandth of a wing?

Why don’t you go ask the “creator” why it gave ostriches, kiwis, emus, rheas, etc. wings that are useless?

Henry and Novparl,

“A man has no reason to be ashamed of having an ape for his grandfather. If there were an ancestor whom I should feel shame in recalling it would rather be a man who plunges into scientific questions with which he has no real acquaintance, only to obscure them by an aimless rhetoric.…” — Thomas Henry Huxley

Stanton said:

Keelyn said:

Is there something wrong with my computer?? I see henry quoting some people …but no inclusion of any thoughts from henry himself? What gives, henry???? Ah …maybe there is something wrong with henry. Comprehension comes to mind.

henry’s own alleged thoughts are at the bottom of his posts: he accidentally included them inside the [/blockquote] tag.

Thank you for pointing that out, Stanton. In other words, henry cannot properly format a post (three different times?). At almost 2:00am, with my eyes virtually taped open and glazed over, I missed that. Nevertheless, fatigue is no excuse for sloppy reading, so I admit I messed up.

Having gone back and read henry’s comments, the conclusions have not changed. When all you can do, henry, is quote discredited creationist claptrap by those who are the most notorious for misrepresenting, misquoting, distorting and ignoring facts and evidence, and just plain lying out of their creationist assholes over and over, you only demonstrate the futility of arguing with an obvious biblical fanatic – real evidence is meaningless. I recently had a short argument, to my chagrin, with a Genesis literalist who sincerely insisted that the WMAP was nothing more than a meaningless blotch of pretty colors – that modern cosmology is nothing but an atheistic conspiracy to disprove the existence of his personal deity. That from a person who changes oil and tires eight hours a day and spends the remaining 1/3 of his waking hours reading the sports page (and Bible, I assume)! That is not meant in any way to be an affront to people who change oil and tires or reads and enjoys sports – only that it is remarkable that some people can be so totally unaware and unconcerned of their own ignorance. I do not understand what drives a person to be so willfully ignorant. Are you really that insecure, henry, with the Universe?

Anyway, there is a beneficial side of people like you, henry. Biology is not my science specialty, so I feel I learn a lot more about this subject from the very informed people here who present volumes of information and evidence I might not otherwise read. With all the millions of Lambda-CDM Big Bang deniers out there, I only wish I could find an astrophysics or astronomy site that was as well constructed as this one. Perhaps someone could suggest one that I have not visited before.

Note to henry and Novparl: Albert Einstein was said, “We obviously don’t know what we are doing. If we did, it wouldn’t be called research, would it?” Take a hint – research. Try it sometime.

Novparl said:

GVL Geologist - what use is 1 thousandth of a wing? Or did wings evolve a half at a time? Evo-magic.

I just can’t imagine what it must be like to be that stupid.

I just can’t imagine what it must be like to be that stupid.

Apparently, bliss.

No… Wait… that’s how it feels to be that ignorant.

I’m bored. Take it to the bathroom wall.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Reed A. Cartwright published on June 13, 2009 4:35 PM.

Fossilized Insects Revealed in 3-D Scans was the previous entry in this blog.

Phyllopteryx taeniolatus 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