Some polling data on evolution

| 450 Comments

Some new polling data on the lack of acceptance of evolution.

The Discovery Institute is touting a poll that they commissioned from Zogby which claims that 52% of the American public believe that “the development of life was guided by intelligent design.”

An Ipsos/Mori poll in the UK shows that only 33% of the American public thinks that “scientific evidence for evolution exists”. This compares with 51% in Britain and 8% in Egypt. While the poll considered additional countries, over at a simple prop I’ve tabulated results for Britain, the US and Eqypt (as a representative Muslim country) and made some comments on the issue of theistic evolution. Leave comments there or here (though I will probably not be reading the thread here).

450 Comments

They’re also having a wonderful time with that poll at http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte[…]umps-darwin/

Lets see if John’s email address forwarding is fixed.

Oh, I see. It’s a popularity contest.

Any poll that involves the Discovery Institute in any way is less dependable than a one legged horse.

I’m not sure why they are getting worked up over this. No one is disputing that science education in the US is lousy.

Of course we’re thinking, what’s new?

More sinister is how they worded the poll, though. Instead of asking if people accept evolution and god, they ask: “Statement B: The development of life was guided by intelligent design.” Frankly, I’m surprised that 33% would take the other choice, unguided evolution, which is higher than what’s seen in polls that allow the choice of “theistic evolution” under that or some other term.

This is not unlike the “scientists who dissent from Darwinism,” which is so worded that almost anyone could agree with the literal wording of said “dissent.”

Obviously a lot of people in the 52% would claim to agree with the scientific theory evolution and that god guided it, no matter that the two ideas really aren’t compatible in the usual understanding of evolutionary theory. The IDiots exploit such confusion to throw god believing evolutionists into the ID column.

Gee, dishonesty from the DI? The novelty of it is staggering.

Glen Davidson

http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

The results for the other questions show a larger majority [76%-80%] favoring balanced and fair treatment.

henry said:

The results for the other questions show a larger majority [76%-80%] favoring balanced and fair treatment.

So tell us why lying, slandering pseudoscientists should be given equally fair and balanced treatments as clandestine scientists. Tell us what the Discovery Institute has ever done to deserve balanced and fair treatment.

henry said:

The results for the other questions show a larger majority [76%-80%] favoring balanced and fair treatment.

Like Fox news?
Seriously though, who’s against “balanced and fair”? It’s a meaningless question unless “balanced and fair” is defined.
Evolutionists believe, correctly, that it means that theories that have been developed and tested over decades, that have been verified through thousands of peer reviewed papers, and grown in explanatory and predictive power over the years should be given precedence over theories that have avoided the whole science part of science and headed straight for the classroom.
Creationists on the other hand, believe that their creation myth, and their creation myth only, should, without any scientific evidence to support it, be given equal time and be presented as equally valid, as a theory that has accumulated 150 years worth of evidence and has become accepted as the best explanation for the evidence by all but a trivial fraction of the scientists in the life sciences.

Henry whines…

The results for the other questions show a larger majority [76%-80%] favoring balanced and fair treatment.

Fine.

I’m OK with teaching any theory that can demonstrate some empirical proof.

As soon as you get get some positive evidence, henry, let me know, and I’ll be the strongest advocate for having it taught in schools throughout the land.

Henry,

Read that paper yet, or even the abstract? It is fair and balanced. You’re for that right? Next time you demand evidence, be prepared to deal with it. That’s what fair and balanced means in science. If you are not willing to do that, then it would be fair say that you are unbalanced.

I suppose that Zogby and his colleagues must be hard up for money. What else could explain their willingness to work on behalf of the Disco Tute? Thought today was April 1st, then I realized that it wasn’t.…

Well, shocking, two things:

1) Call me back when science is a popularity contest.

2) People are stupid…or as Nietzsche once said: Insanity in individuals is rare…but in Nations, groups and even ages it is the rule.

Glen Davidson said:

Of course we’re thinking, what’s new?

More sinister is how they worded the poll, though. Instead of asking if people accept evolution and god, they ask: “Statement B: The development of life was guided by intelligent design.” Frankly, I’m surprised that 33% would take the other choice, unguided evolution, which is higher than what’s seen in polls that allow the choice of “theistic evolution” under that or some other term.

This is not unlike the “scientists who dissent from Darwinism,” which is so worded that almost anyone could agree with the literal wording of said “dissent.”

Obviously a lot of people in the 52% would claim to agree with the scientific theory evolution and that god guided it, no matter that the two ideas really aren’t compatible in the usual understanding of evolutionary theory. The IDiots exploit such confusion to throw god believing evolutionists into the ID column.

Gee, dishonesty from the DI? The novelty of it is staggering.

Glen Davidson

http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Here are the four questions.

How would you word them?

4. Would you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree that teachers and students should have the academic freedom to discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of evolution as a scientific theory?

5. Charles Darwin wrote that when considering the evidence for his theory of evolution, “…a fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.” Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with Darwin’s statement?

6. I am going to read you two statements about Biology teachers teaching Darwin’s theory of evolution. Please tell me which statement comes closest to your own point of view—Statement A or Statement B? Statement A: Biology teachers should teach only Darwin’s theory of evolution and the scientific evidence that supports it. Statement B: Biology teachers should teach Darwin’s theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it.

7. Please tell me which statement comes closest to your own point of view—Statement A or Statement B? Statement A: The development of life came about through an unguided process of random mutations and natural selection. Statement B: The development of life was guided by intelligent design.

Polls on what the general public “believes?!” Really? How does what a majority believes affect the facts? Oh that’s right, it doesn’t. The DI can tout what people think all they like, it doesn’t change reality any more than the creation museum’s inane displays do.

henry asked some ‘questions’. I’ll use his numbers.

4) Assumes that there is an academic freedom to teach lies. There isn’t. There are no ‘weaknesses’ in the Theory of Evolution, if by that is meant scientific evidence opposed to it. The only scientific evidence is for it.

5) Assumes that what was true of the Theory in Darwin’s day is true now. It isn’t. There are no “two sides”. All of the evidence is on one side, and all arguments against the Theory are invariably based on ignorance, simple incredulity, false reasoning, or straight-out untruths. Again, the fundamental assumption is that there is a right to demand that lies be taught.

6) Assumes that there is evidence against the Theory of Evolution. There is none. Again, the assumption is that there is a right to demand that lies be taught.

7) There is no evidence for Statement B at all, and therefore it isn’t even a hypothesis, scientifically speaking. Statement A is attested by evidence, except for the words “unguided process”. If you substituted the words “a process in which no design is discernable”, it would be correct.

So, to reword:

4) Do you believe that science teachers should be required to teach only scientific theory and the evidence for it, or should they be free to evangelise their own religious beliefs?

5) A hundred and fifty years ago, Darwin said that the “facts and arguments” behind the Theory of Evolution should be weighed. Since that time, no fact has been found that contradicts it, and all the facts found have supported it. Should science teachers explain this to students?

6) Should biology teachers teach the only evidence-based explanation for the development of life, or should they teach explanations for which no evidence exists?

7) Should science teach only propositions for which there is empirical evidence, or should it teach propositions for which no evidence exists?

henry said: Statement B: Biology teachers should teach Darwin’s theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it.

Not a problem. Every actual biology teacher would rejoice to teach the scientific evidence against evolution - it would be the shortest class of the term. In fact, here’s the entire body of the text of that class, between the arrows: –>.<–

Perhaps Henry would like to give some examples of evidence against evolution? I am betting that this would consist entirely of quotes from creationists and not one bit of real evidence. Certainly it would not include any scientific articles from peer reviewed journals. Henry has shown that he is emotionally and intellectually incapable of even reading an abstract let alone understanding anything scientific. Now would that be the “fair and balanced” treatment that Henry is advocatiing? Maybe Henry wants astrology taught along with astronomy as well. Would that be “fair and balanced”. Behe seems to think so.

Perhaps Henry would like to give some examples of evidence against evolution?

Better yet, Perhaps Henry would like to give some examples of evidence for Intelligent Design.

That would be a much simpler, more productive effort, since as soon as ID proponents have any scrap of positive evidence it short circuits the constitutional “Lemon tests” and they would be immediately able to teach it in any school in all the land.

Hmmmm, now I wonder just why creationists don’t actively pursue what would be a much more productive strategy?

Could it be that there is no proof for ID, because there is no ID?

Nawww, that couldn’t be it.

What is their point? Wouldn’t Las Vegas win the poll question “what is the state capital of Nevada”?

I seem to recall that another Zogby poll in 1542 showed that 97% of Europeans thought the Sun went around the Earth and in 1911 a separate poll had 98% of geologists believing that the continents were static.

Bottom line is that science is never influenced by polls, only science education and science policy are. For these reasons we really should be concerned about these numbers, regardless of the biased way in which the question was asked.

henry said:

Here are the four questions.

How would you word them?

Time for the Flat Earth Test, sez I. Try these questions:

4. Would you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree that teachers and students should have the academic freedom to discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of earth sphericity as a scientific theory?

5. Pythagoras wrote that when considering the evidence for his theory of earth sphericity, “…a fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.” Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with Pythagoras’s statement?

6. I am going to read you two statements about Geography teachers teaching the theory of earth sphericity. Please tell me which statement comes closest to your own point of view—Statement A or Statement B? Statement A: Geography teachers should teach only the theory of earth sphericity and the scientific evidence that supports it. Statement B: Geography teachers should teach the theory of earth sphericity, but also the scientific evidence against it.

7. Please tell me which statement comes closest to your own point of view—Statement A or Statement B? Statement A: The earth is roughly spherical. Statement B: The earth is a flat disk.

Now, would you answer these questions in the same way you would answer the evolution questions? Why or why not?

This looks like fun. I want to play.

Here are the four questions. How would you word them?

4. Would you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree that teachers and students should have the academic freedom to discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of germ theory as a scientific theory?

5. Pasteur obtained evidence for the germ theory of disease. Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with Pasteur’s position?

6. I am going to read you two statements about Biology teachers teaching the germ theory of disease. Please tell me which statement comes closest to your own point of view—Statement A or Statement B? Statement A: Biology teachers should teach only the germ theory of disease and the scientific evidence that supports it. Statement B: Biology teachers should teach the germ theory of disease, but also the scientific evidence against it.

7. Please tell me which statement comes closest to your own point of view—Statement A or Statement B? Statement A: The development of disease can come about through an unguided process of random infection. Statement B: The development of disease must be guided by an intelligence in order to punish the wicked.

Now, would you answer these questions in the same way you would answer the evolution questions? Why or why not?

“Evidence”

We use that word quite often, implying that the DI/creationists have none - and they don’t. But I heard of a site that supposedly does creationist work - the biologic_institute.org. I went to the site and of course it was all anti-evolution nonsense. But what was most interesting is if you do a wikipedia search on biologic_institute, you find the history of this site. It was set up by none other than the DI itself as a tax-exempt front organization so the DI could answer their detractors who say they’re (the DI) is not engaged in doing actual research. Interesting reading.

henry repeating the Discovery Institute’s lies:

6. I am going to read you two statements about Biology teachers teaching Darwin’s theory of evolution. Please tell me which statement comes closest to your own point of view—Statement A or Statement B? Statement A: Biology teachers should teach only Darwin’s theory of evolution and the scientific evidence that supports it. Statement B: Biology teachers should teach Darwin’s theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it.

If Intelligent Design proponents want evidence against Evolutionary Biology taught, then how come they have never brought up any of these alleged contrary evidence? I mean, even they have to realize that lies do not count as evidence in science or education.

Strictly speaking teachers shouldn’t teach Darwin’s theory of evolution at all, except as an introduction to what they should teach: Modern Evolutionary Theory.

Is There Some Truth to Dragon Myths? by Brian Thomas, M.S.*

Over a decade ago, a creation scientist wrote, “The creation model of origins makes many predictions, one of them being that evidence will be found that tells us that in the recent past, dinosaurs and man have co-existed.”2 Indeed, evidence continues to fulfill this prediction.5 Whereas most of the Harry Potter world is grounded firmly in fancy, the concept that certain “strangely familiar”1 dragon-looking dinosaurs existed with humans has a broad foundation in history.

References

1.Dinosaurs and Dragons, Oh My! Stanford Fossil Historian Links Dinosaur Bones to Mythological Creatures. Stanford University Humanities press release, October 2008. 2.Cooper, B. 1992. The Early History of Man – Part 4. Living Dinosaurs from Anglo-Saxon and other Early Records. Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal. 6 (1): 49.

* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.

Article posted on July 2, 2009.

henry, if you’re interested in myth, legend and folkstory, there’s lots of places to hang around on. It’s a perfectly legitimate field of study, but it isn’t what we’re interested in here, as a group. We’re interested in the actual evidence of the history of the Earth as attested by nature. You know, fact.

Have you had a look at any of the real scientific papers you’ve had recommended to you yet? If not, why not? If so, how about some substantive comment on them, addressing the actual facts, eh?

Yet, Mr Thomas’ non-peer reviewed paper can’t explain why the legends don’t match up with the actual descriptions of the various dragons with the compared dinosaurs, like, why would Triceratops would be the basis of the Tarrasque legend, or how people would remember Tyrannosaurus as being a strong-armed descendant of Cain, or why these same legends don’t match up with where the fossils are found, like why would people say that Saint George slew his dragon, allegedly Baryonyx, in Libya, even though Baryonyx is only found in England, or why we would have the Tarrasque in France, and Grendel the T. rex in Denmark even though Triceratops and T. rex were restricted to North America.

And then there’s the fact that Mr Thomas also doesn’t explain why there is no physical evidence of humans interacting with nonavian dinosaurs, i.e., no deliberate burials, no items designed specifically for use by dinosaurs ever found (toys, collars, jewelry, saddles, weapons to kill them, etc), and no nonavian dinosaur fossils with signs of being butchered.

So, tell us, henry, why did Mr Thomas neglect such vital information in his “report”?

Dave Luckett said:

Have you had a look at any of the real scientific papers you’ve had recommended to you yet?

No he hasn’t, and he never will.

If not, why not?

He confuses ignorance and willful stupidity with piety.

If so, how about some substantive comment on them, addressing the actual facts, eh?

His stupidity-cum-piety wholly prevents him from dealing with facts in an honest or truthful manner. (e.g., his reliance on the pious lie-mill, the Institute for Creation Research)

Rilke’s Granddaughter said:

And in fact, I checked. Henry is lying.

Why do theists lie so much? Don’t they know they’re going to get caught? Isn’t it against the Christian faith to lie?

Lying theists like henry think that they’re doing the Lord’s work, in that, committing sin, i.e., lying and slandering, while doing the Lord’s work is either a) isn’t technically sin, or b) they will be automatically absolved of the sins they commit while doing the Lord’s work because they’re doing the Lord’s work. Of course, such people conveniently forget that Jesus specifically stated that doing the Lord’s work is not license to commit sin, and that He stated that those who commit sin in His name are persona non grata to Him.

I did a quick (emphasis on quick) check on the web, and as far as I can see, what Henry appears to be referring to is the change of age of consent laws to equalize ages for homosexual and heterosexual age of consent in at least some of these countries. Anyone with more time have details?

Now apart from the fact that this has NOTHING to do with the topic at hand, I would ask Henry again if he has any actual evidence for any scientific questions presented to him? I am dying to know, but not holding my breath here.

Rilke’s Granddaughter said:

And in fact, I checked. Henry is lying.

mplavcan said:

I did a quick (emphasis on quick) check on the web, and as far as I can see, what Henry appears to be referring to is the change of age of consent laws to equalize ages for homosexual and heterosexual age of consent in at least some of these countries. Anyone with more time have details?

Now apart from the fact that this has NOTHING to do with the topic at hand, I would ask Henry again if he has any actual evidence for any scientific questions presented to him? I am dying to know, but not holding my breath here.

Rilke’s Granddaughter said:

And in fact, I checked. Henry is lying.

Thanks for doing the quick check.

I still don’t understand why you claimed the Pew Research study showed that a majority of Americans reject science.

Was it because the percentages were not high enough? [84% positive toward science and 70% positive toward scientists were not high enough]

Or was it because the percentages were not low enough? If they were lower, then the stereotype of American public’s ignorance would be confirmed.

Henry wrote:

“If they were lower, then the stereotype of American public’s ignorance would be confirmed.”

You’re doing a fine job of that all by yourself lad.

As long as you are so into statistics, perhaps you could tell us what percentage of Americans derive benefits from science and technology and the percentage of those who merely tolerate it or those who reject it outright. Perhaps you could then inform us of the word that would properly describe these individuals contained in both sets. Perhaps you could then inform us why that term should not be applied to you as well.

henry said:

mplavcan said:

I did a quick (emphasis on quick) check on the web, and as far as I can see, what Henry appears to be referring to is the change of age of consent laws to equalize ages for homosexual and heterosexual age of consent in at least some of these countries. Anyone with more time have details?

Now apart from the fact that this has NOTHING to do with the topic at hand, I would ask Henry again if he has any actual evidence for any scientific questions presented to him? I am dying to know, but not holding my breath here.

Rilke’s Granddaughter said:

And in fact, I checked. Henry is lying.

Thanks for doing the quick check.

I still don’t understand why you claimed the Pew Research study showed that a majority of Americans reject science.

Was it because the percentages were not high enough? [84% positive toward science and 70% positive toward scientists were not high enough]

Or was it because the percentages were not low enough? If they were lower, then the stereotype of American public’s ignorance would be confirmed.

So, henry, for the record, you admit you’ve been proven wrong time and again, you admit you’re a lying sack of shit and you admit you have no evidence to support any claim you have ever made. You’re pulling all this out of your ass, or James Dobson’s ass, or ICR’s collective asses, and you don’t even give a flying fuck whether or not any of it’s true, you just want to fling your own feces at people because you can’t stand the thought you might be related to a monkey.

Okay, now that we’ve established that henry’s posts are approximately 100% bullshit, can we just state that fact every time he takes a dump here, refer back to previous exposed bullshit, and move on? Really, he’s not worth arguing with over and over and over…

fnxtr said:

Okay, now that we’ve established that henry’s posts are approximately 100% bullshit, can we just state that fact every time he takes a dump here, refer back to previous exposed bullshit, and move on? Really, he’s not worth arguing with over and over and over…

It could easily be more than 100%, like oleum (fuming sulphuric acid.) Pure sulphuric acid has 0% water - oleum effectively has negative water. And extend the comparison, oleum carries “Corrosive” Hazchem labels too.

fnxtr wrote:

“Okay, now that we’ve established that henry’s posts are approximately 100% bullshit, can we just state that fact every time he takes a dump here, refer back to previous exposed bullshit, and move on? Really, he’s not worth arguing with over and over and over…”

How about:

Henry said it, I don’t believe it and that’s that.

What, you think that isn’t an appropriate response for a real scientist. Well I know someone you should inform. He runs a real scientifical museumy thingy.

Once again, your selective reading leaves me a bit perplexed. My original post noted that Answers in Genesis celebrated the fact that a majority of Americans reject science. This is based on the fact that only 32% accept the fact that humans evolved. It is as close to proven fact as any science can come. Science has demonstrated that humans evolved. Only 32% of Americans accept this. Ergo, the majority of Americans reject science. Answers in Genesis is happy with this result. Is this so hard to understand? Let’s put it this way – if a poll found that 84% of Americans claimed to respect laws against drunk driving, but only 32% of them believed that they were obliged to and actually did follow them, would you then conclude that Americans respected laws against drunk driving?

Of course, you reject evolution, and therefore science (as well as climatology, apparently), while claiming to support science, serving as an exemplar of the problem.

As for the (irrelevant) gay numbers. Yes I did fact check them, albeit weakly. However, let’s be extremely clear that my view is that these countries are simply implementing a fair justice system by making age of consent equal without regard to the gender or sex of the individuals involved in a consensual act. There is no indication that this represents anything like a militant gay agenda, and in no way supports the vile hate-filled filth that you endorse.

I am still waiting for ANY evidence about any scientific topic. I assume that your failure to provide any, in spite of your willingness to post comments, indicates that you have none.

End of discussion.

henry said:

Thanks for doing the quick check.

I still don’t understand why you claimed the Pew Research study showed that a majority of Americans reject science.

Was it because the percentages were not high enough? [84% positive toward science and 70% positive toward scientists were not high enough]

Or was it because the percentages were not low enough? If they were lower, then the stereotype of American public’s ignorance would be confirmed.

DS said:

How about:

Henry said it, I don’t believe it and that’s that.

What, you think that isn’t an appropriate response for a real scientist. Well I know someone you should inform. He runs a real scientifical museumy thingy.

How about:

“henry, everything you’ve posted so far is utter bullshit (insert link to anything henry has posted), we’re not believing this new bullshit either. Please go away.”

fnxtr said:

DS said:

How about:

Henry said it, I don’t believe it and that’s that.

What, you think that isn’t an appropriate response for a real scientist. Well I know someone you should inform. He runs a real scientifical museumy thingy.

How about:

“henry, everything you’ve posted so far is utter bullshit (insert link to anything henry has posted), we’re not believing this new bullshit either. Please go away.”

It’s really a case of negative credibility. henry has lied so often and so transparently, he has shown such a profound disdain for truth, that there is no reason to assume he is even capable of making a true statement. Anything he says should be treated as a lie until demonstrated otherwise. If, by some miracle, he someday learned how to tell the truth, it would take him months or years even to get back to zero. He will always carry the taint of his rampant dishonesty.

mplavcan said:

Once again, your selective reading leaves me a bit perplexed. My original post noted that Answers in Genesis celebrated the fact that a majority of Americans reject science. This is based on the fact that only 32% accept the fact that humans evolved. It is as close to proven fact as any science can come. Science has demonstrated that humans evolved. Only 32% of Americans accept this. Ergo, the majority of Americans reject science. Answers in Genesis is happy with this result. Is this so hard to understand? Let’s put it this way – if a poll found that 84% of Americans claimed to respect laws against drunk driving, but only 32% of them believed that they were obliged to and actually did follow them, would you then conclude that Americans respected laws against drunk driving?

Of course, you reject evolution, and therefore science (as well as climatology, apparently), while claiming to support science, serving as an exemplar of the problem.

As for the (irrelevant) gay numbers. Yes I did fact check them, albeit weakly. However, let’s be extremely clear that my view is that these countries are simply implementing a fair justice system by making age of consent equal without regard to the gender or sex of the individuals involved in a consensual act. There is no indication that this represents anything like a militant gay agenda, and in no way supports the vile hate-filled filth that you endorse.

I am still waiting for ANY evidence about any scientific topic. I assume that your failure to provide any, in spite of your willingness to post comments, indicates that you have none.

End of discussion.

henry said:

Thanks for doing the quick check.

I still don’t understand why you claimed the Pew Research study showed that a majority of Americans reject science.

Was it because the percentages were not high enough? [84% positive toward science and 70% positive toward scientists were not high enough]

Or was it because the percentages were not low enough? If they were lower, then the stereotype of American public’s ignorance would be confirmed.

150 Years Later, Fossils Still Don’t Help Darwin by Brian Thomas, M.S.* “Creationists claim there are no transitional fossils, aka missing links. Biologists and paleontologists, among others, know this claim is false,” according to a recent LiveScience article that then describes what it claims are 12 specific transitional form fossils.1 But do these examples really confirm Darwinism?

Charles Darwin raised a lack of transitional fossils as a possible objection to his own theory: “Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?”2 Later in this chapter of his landmark book, he expressed hope that future discoveries would be made of transitional forms, or of creatures that showed some transitional structure—perhaps a half-scale/half-feather.

Fossils do reveal some truth about Darwin’s theory—they reveal that the same inconsistencies he noted between his theory and the fossil data persist, even after 150 years of frantic searches for elusive transitions.10 Not only is there no single, undisputed transition, but real fossils reveal that animals were fully formed from the beginning.

References

1.Lloyd, R. Fossils Reveal Truth About Darwin’s Theory. LiveScience. Posted on Livescience.com February 11, 2009, accessed February 18, 2009.

2.Darwin, C. 1902. On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection: or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, 6th Edition. New York: P. F. Collier & Son. 233.

10.Gish, D. 1995. Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No! El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research. * Mr. Thomas is Science Writer.

Article posted on March 2, 2009.

henry, we already know every word from you is a lie. No one here is falling for your bullshit.

150 years later and Henry has still to read a real scientific paper. He just keeps quoting creationist nonsense that he knows full well is rejected by every real scientist. Way to go Henry. Just keep your head stuck in the sand while people come by and whack your ignorant behind.

Henry said it, I don’t believe it and that’s that.

henry said: Not only is there no single, undisputed transition, but real fossils reveal that animals were fully formed from the beginning.

Riiiiight. And there are no transitional states between “baby” and “adult” because every 10-year-old has fully formed limbs and a torso. Henry, when are you guys going to ditch your 18th-century crocoduck definition of ‘transitional’ in favor of one that considers 20th-century genetics and development?

Tiktaalik is an ampibian with scales. Its transitional, because modern biology tells us that a series of genetic mutations in the genes for fish limb development would result in a scaled fish-like critter with sligthly different feet. Exactly as we see. No (short) series of small genetic changes in a set of genes is going to lead to an animal with the back half of fish and the front half of an amphibian, because that’s not the way genes work.

It’s pointless responding to henry. He’s just a cut-and-paste robot. Nothing to see here…

If anyone questions why we don’t respond to Henry anymore, just read some of the crap this fool has posted over the last three months. He hasn’t read a single reference or even answered a single question. All he is capable of is quoting long discredited creationist nonsense.

If anyone is interested in transitional forms, here is a link with references to hundreds:

talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

When Henry sees fit to give his explanation for this evidence maybe then someone will take him seriously, or maybe not.

eric said:

Riiiiight. And there are no transitional states between “baby” and “adult” because every 10-year-old has fully formed limbs and a torso. Henry, when are you guys going to ditch your 18th-century crocoduck definition of ‘transitional’ in favor of one that considers 20th-century genetics and development?

They would have considered the idea of a “crocoduck” to be irredeemably idiotic, worthy only of tear-filled, derisive laughter even in the 18th century.

DS said:

If anyone questions why we don’t respond to Henry anymore, just read some of the crap this fool has posted over the last three months. He hasn’t read a single reference or even answered a single question. All he is capable of is quoting long discredited creationist nonsense.

If anyone is interested in transitional forms, here is a link with references to hundreds:

talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

When Henry sees fit to give his explanation for this evidence maybe then someone will take him seriously, or maybe not.

The talkorigins website has a link to Creation Wiki rebuttal, which has a response to each point.

“Creation Wiki” !???!??!

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!

Thanks, henry, that made my day.

henry said:

DS said:

If anyone questions why we don’t respond to Henry anymore, just read some of the crap this fool has posted over the last three months. He hasn’t read a single reference or even answered a single question. All he is capable of is quoting long discredited creationist nonsense.

If anyone is interested in transitional forms, here is a link with references to hundreds:

talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

When Henry sees fit to give his explanation for this evidence maybe then someone will take him seriously, or maybe not.

The talkorigins website has a link to Creation Wiki rebuttal, which has a response to each point.

The link is here

http://creationwiki.org/Transitiona[…]_are_lacking

and if you follow it you’ll find (shocking!) that henry has mischaracterized it.

It does not “resopond” to any of the data in

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

Instead, it quibbles over the meaning of the word “transitional”, and then states that there’s no need to worry about such quibbling because “transitional fossils between closely-related species” are perfectly consistent with “the creation model.”

And that is, indeed, the problem with the creation model. Anything is consistent with the creation model:

Do all organisms use the same DNA code? That’s because the creator wanted it that way!

Are there some organisms that use variants of the DNA code? That’s because the creator wanted it that way!

Do related organisms have the same defects in their junk DNA? That’s because the creator wanted it that way!

As you see, all questions have the same answer. That’s because the creator wanted it that way!

fnxtr said:

“Creation Wiki” !???!??!

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!

Thanks, henry, that made my day.

henry’s posts get stupider and stupider…

Is he really naturally that stupid, or is he enhancing his stupidity by inhaling rubber cement fumes?

Trolling for Grades, more like. Notice there were no quality criteria for the posts, just quantity.

stevaroni said:

henry prattles…

“Although a biologist, I must confess I do not understand how life came about.… How such already quite complex structures may have come together, remains a mystery to me. The possibility of the existence of a Creator, of God, represents to me a satisfactory solution to this problem.”

While not an admission that God is Creator, Dr. Arber demonstrates a level of genuine intellectual honesty that other evolutionists are afraid to reveal.

Intellectual honesty? What are you talking about?

Strip out all the elliptical speech and Arber says “I don’t know about abiogenesis. Therefore I presume God”.

Fair enough. That’s the man’s position, and he’s entitled to it.

But there are three elephants in the room.

First, he has no actual evidence of the hand of God, now does he? His presumption is entirely negative, based wholly on, well, something other than observable fact.

Secondly, I assume this means he’s OK with everything after the first cells. This conveniently, is the entirety of Darwininan evolution

Your expert, Dr Arber, is, in fact, a Darwinist! The Horror!

Thirdly, just for the record, Science doesn’t know how the first cells came about either. That was long ago and far away and left precious little evidence in the sands of time.

Nobody (outside of creationist circles) tries to hide the admission that science doesn’t know everything.

But what science has done is demonstrate that there are several plausible paths to those first cells (actually more like those first organelles), and that demonstration torpedoes the basic tenant of Arber’s brand of creationism, that there’s no conceivable mechanism except for God.

But henry, enough quotemining and homophobia. When are you going to put some evidence on the table?

[cue change of subject]

One man’s scientific fact is another man’s leap of faith.

The beginning of life experiments that you think provide paths to those first cells must not be adequate to Dr. Arber. The gap is too great to reach the first living self replicating cells.

If Dr. Arber has to insert a Creator into the picture at the beginnning of life, could there be other gaps that evolution can’t handle?

henry said:

The beginning of life experiments that you think provide paths to those first cells must not be adequate to Dr. Arber. The gap is too great to reach the first living self replicating cells.

If Dr. Arber has to insert a Creator into the picture at the beginnning of life, could there be other gaps that evolution can’t handle?

Wrong. Dr Arber does not say that “he has to insert a Creator”. He only says he doesn’t know, but that he thinks that the existence of God is a possibility, and one that is satisfactory to him. That’s all. That does not mean that the “gap is too great” and will always be too great. That’s something you’ve read into his words, and it’s invalid.

Nobody knows how life began. The evidence is too scant. There are some interesting suggestions, some useful leads, some tantalising evidence, but nobody knows.

But to say that nobody knows, and therefore that it must be God, is to argue from ignorance. It doesn’t follow.

Could there be gaps that evolution can’t handle? None have ever been demonstrated. Every one that has been proposed has been easily shot down. But here’s the thing, henry: if ever one such gap were demonstrated plainly, the Theory of Evolution is history. Scientists will drop it like a hot rock if that is ever done for sure.

But you’re simply saying that you think there must be such a gap, somehow, somewhere. It won’t do, henry. In the face of the direct evidence that living things have evolved and are evolving, you have to demonstrate one such impassible gap from empirical evidence or direct observation and put it up for peer review.

That’s exactly what is meant by “put up or shut up”. Find your evidence, show your working, demonstrate your calculations and place the whole thing before your colleagues, holding nothing back. That’s how theories are attacked, in science.

But that hasn’t happened. Creationists haven’t even tried to do it. Troll through the creationist sites until Doomsday, and you won’t find a single piece of valid, attestable evidence of any “gap”. You’ll only find desperate apologetics, usually invalid and dishonest, trying to discredit some small piece of the vast body of evidence attesting to evolution. And usually failing to do even that much.

Dave Luckett said:

But to say that nobody knows, and therefore that it must be God, is to argue from ignorance. It doesn’t follow.

And to add (as opposed to differ) the reasoning is a bit like this: “Since we have no idea what happened, then we will have to assume that it was a miracle.”

Reply: “So we would regard that as the default assumption because … of the HUGE list of other mysterious things that we KNOW were explained by miracles?”

Henry wrote:

“The talkorigins website has a link to Creation Wiki rebuttal, which has a response to each point.”

Great. So you shouldn’t have any trouble giving your response now should you? Notice that:”God wanted it that way” is not an argument since it does not allow one to distinguish between hypotheses. You must explain exactly why God wanted it to appear that organisms had indeed evolved and why all of the evidence is consistent with this hypothesis.

“One man’s scientific fact is another man’s leap of faith.”

Perhaps, but ignoring all scientific facts in order to make unwarranted leaps of faith has not proven to be a productive approach. If you don’t think that a scientific conclusion is supported by enough evidence fine, but you can’t just assume an alternative for which there is no evidenc whatsoever. That would be a double standard so blantatly obvious as to remove you from condsideration in any rational discussion.

henry said:

One man’s scientific fact is another man’s leap of faith.

Bullshit.

Evolution has been observed, studied, demonstrated and even replicated in the field and in laboratories for over a century.

To claim that evolution does not occur simply because it conflicts with your warped interpretation of the Bible is idiocy.

You have also repeatedly demonstrated that you are a shameless and clumsy liar who both cares nothing for actual facts, and who has no desire to distinguish between sarcasm and homophobic paranoia.

Henry reaches back to a 2 week old comment to equivocate thusly…

One man’s scientific fact is another man’s leap of faith.

Um, no.

The entire idea of a fact is that it is a stand-alone datum of information that can be documented and examined. One mans scientific fact is everybody’s scientific fact, inconvenient though that might be for the morons at the creation museum who prattle on about their “framework” nonsense.

Now, in fairness, henry, we do have precious few facts about exactly what happened at the very beginning, mostly because it’s pretty hard to find the fossils of 100-micron amino acid strings from 3 million millenia ago.

We do have plenty of evidence of the conditions extant at the time, and plenty of evidence that that simple, self-replicating, molecules can, and likely did, exist under those conditions.

The beginning of life experiments that you think provide paths to those first cells must not be adequate to Dr. Arber.

So?

Why should I give a rat’s ass what Dr Arber thinks when he so clearly avoids the elephant in the room?

Arber’s, indeed all creationists, entire argument relies completely on the negative, that is, on the unproven supposition that it is simply impossible to get to self-replicating molecules by any conceivable natural means, ergo, it has, to be a supernatural force.

Leaving aside for a moment, the baffling circular nature of the argument (it’s impossible for a simple molecule to form on it’s own, yet a complex God is no problem?), the logic relies entirely on having no plausible natural path to self-replication. Cut off that one leg and the one-legged stool collapses.

Now that we have half-a-dozen plausible paths, not only does the emperor have no clothes, he has no legs.

The gap is too great to reach the first living self replicating cells.

Then you should have no problem demonstrating exactly where this gap exists. Which tiny step has science gotten wrong?

Please be specific, henry, enough hand waiving. Exactly which demonstrated fact do you disagree with?

Do you have any actual evidence that we’ve gotten something wrong?

Oh, wait, I’ve asked that question before. That’s right, you don’t.

Since this has

a) gotten off the original topic, b) turned into a beat-down of Henry, and c) been going on for over six weeks now,

I’m going to shut-down comments.

Run along and play in another thread :)

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by John M. Lynch published on July 1, 2009 2:58 PM.

Does Science Lead to Atheism? was the previous entry in this blog.

Attending the NAPC in Cincinnati 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 4.361

Site Meter