Evolution Book Chapters from NCSE

| 18 Comments

Via Daniel Florien at Unreasonable Faith.

NCSE has made available (with appropriate permissions) pdfs of a bunch of book chapters well worth reading on their own. They are from:

Charles Darwin’s On the Origin Of Species: A Graphic Adaptation by Michael Keller

The Tangled Bank by Carl Zimmer

Evolution, Second Edition By Douglas J. Futuyma

Evidence of Evolution by Susan Middleton and Mary Ellen Hannibal

Evolution: The story of life by Douglas Palmer

Evolution: How We and All Living Things Came to Be by Daniel Loxton

Rapture Ready! by Daniel Radosh

Evolution vs. Creationism, 2nd edition by Eugenie C. Scott

18 Comments

I read “Rapture Ready”. I can’t really recommend it. It started out very well, and the author seems to have a similar sense of humour to that of Mark Twain as in “innocents Abroad”. The book deteriorated considerably towards the end with long chapters on Christian contemporary music (which I regard personally as very bad music, with a Christian theme). I prefer classical music. I love the religious music of Bach and Handel; it’s possible to like the music and ignore the theme. Last Thursday I went to a concert by a singer who used to be called Cat Stevens before he got religion bad and became Yusuf Islam. A lot of his songs are sort of religious, but they have very nice tunes.

I recently discovered the I.D leader Mr Berlinski , like some of his stuff and his conviction on the odds against evolution, and for the first time saw/heard Ms Eugenie C. Scott. i knew her name and position from these circles. Mr Berlinski put to her simple and clear question(s) on a main point about evolution and she totally didn’t answer or understand how to better not answer. She was an embarrassment to the evolution side intellectually and having no credibility. She may have abilities at organization and activism. Yet not understanding her subject. Yet, again, thats her point. that evolution is true and creationism isn’t and must be kept out of reach of children or adults. So how come you can’t make a case or defend it? I would never read anything by her as it would not profit me even to understand the opposition. Youtube can save everyone wasting reading time.

Mr Berlinski put to her simple and clear question(s)

right.

and if these were simple, clear-cut, honest questions…

why haven’t YOU asked them here?

well?

here, before you even start, moron…

Gish Gallop

s

“Mr Berlinski put to her simple and clear question(s) right. and if these were simple, clear-cut, honest questions…why haven’t YOU asked them here? well? here, before you even start, moron…”

I think I can supply the question that David Berlinski asked. He wanted Dr Scott to give the number of “discrete morphological changes” that the wolf-sized ungulate underwent to become a whale, so he could then engage in his ridiculous mathematical calculations, claiming that there has to be at least “50,000 changes, perhaps 2 million changes” from a “cow” to a whale (ignorant idiot, it was from an even-toed ungulate similar to a modern hippopotamus-which is semi-aquatic already), starting with the skin becoming impermeable to water (funny, I’d thought that problem had been solved 317 million years ago with reptiles and reptile-like mammals), changing diet from grass to animals (since cows are vegetarian-idiot), changing the eyes, which means changes in the cerebrum, cerebellum), etc, etc. He then went on to say that he expected an equal number of “intermediates” in the fossil record …

I don’t blame Eugenie Scott having trouble answering the “question”. David Berlinski is an ignorant jackass. Later, he went on to say that he doesn’t accept ID and doesn’t have a theory, so he is also a fool too. Once apparently he admitted that he is only in it for the money; if the Discovery Institute is prepared to pay him large sums of money, he is prepared to accept it … does that make him an intellectual prostitute, if the story is true?

Robert Byers said:

I would never read anything by [Eugenie Scott] as it would not profit me even to understand the opposition. Youtube can save everyone wasting reading time.

What more proof do we need of Robert Byers’ profound stupidity?

The YouTube with that twerp David Berlinski that I found is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5aC[…]ture=related

Is this the one you saw Robert Byers? He asked the same question of Professor Ken Miller.

I’m not certain when the debate was done; Ken Miller said humans have 100,000 genes (which is considerable overestimate currently it’s 20,055 according to Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man). Berlinski wants 100,000 changes (?each and every gene changes …?)

As has been said often, the genome DOES NOT contain a blueprint of each organism, it contains a recipe. A recipe which relies on determining cell division, cell migration, cell differentiation and cell death in a predefined sequence. It’s the control genes that generate the final organism not all the genes acting together all at once.

does that make him an intellectual prostitute

yes, and..

no, I’m not shocked. Michael Ruse went on tour with Dembski to make money playing the argument game a couple years back, so there’s another example for you.

It’s hardly uncommon for people to prostitute themselves for dough.

that said, it’s hardly uncommon to find people committing all sorts of crimes, for that matter. It hardly makes me want to join in.

:P

Robert Byers Wrote:

I recently discovered the I.D leader Mr Berlinski…

So you must know that Berlinski is an agnostic who buys none of your YEC nonsense. And as Wayne Robinson told you, he even admitted rejecting ID. That too is old news, which you would know if didn’t have such a pathetic need to cram every “kind” of science-denier you can find into the big tent.

2.3

Pitiful, just pitiful.

We expect so much more from you, Robert. We want Nephilim and Gog and Magog and the Land of Nod! We want “the Fall is why I’m so screwed up.” Give us the Flood and rainbows and Nimrod and Leviathan!

Come on, man, you can be so much crazier do so much better. We keep you around here for entertainment, and when the court jester is no longer funny…

RBH -

Thanks for putting all of these together here in one post. Should be an invaluable resource for anyone willing to peruse these texts.

Sincerely,

John

John Kwok said:

RBH -

Thanks for putting all of these together here in one post. Should be an invaluable resource for anyone willing to peruse these texts.

Sincerely,

John

Except I didn’t: As noted in the OP, I stole the list from Daniel Florien. :)

A chapter from Massimo Pigliucci’s Nonsense on Stilts is now there as well. It’s Chapter 7 - Science in the Courtroom: The Case Against Intelligent Design.

http://ncse.com/news/2010/06/

Thanks for the links! The Rapture Ready excerpt was very funny.

As for that David Berlinski video, he looks and sounds like he desperately needs more fiber in his diet.

Karen S. said:

Thanks for the links! The Rapture Ready excerpt was very funny.

As for that David Berlinski video, he looks and sounds like he desperately needs more fiber in his diet.

And in his backbone.

And in his backbone.

What backbone?

it would not profit me even to understand the opposition.

We know, that’s the credo of the entire ID-creationism movement.

That’s the problem too.

Rolf Aalberg said:

it would not profit me even to understand the opposition.

We know, that’s the credo of the entire ID-creationism movement.

That’s the problem too.

They might not “understand” it per-se (or if they did, they could never let on), but the movement activists, especially the DI gang, read every bit of evolution literature that they can get their hands on. Of course they do it to specifically to take evidence and quotes out of context, bait-and-switch definitions (e.g. “theory”) and concepts (e.g. evolution vs. abiogenesis), etc. all to promote unreasonable doubt to unsuspecting audiences. I should also admit that they’re pretty skilled at distracting critics into debates over “naturalism” when those critics ought to be forcing them to spell out the details (especially the basic “what did the designer do, when and how”) of their mutually contradictory “theories.”

Frank J said:

… but the movement activists, especially the DI gang, read every bit of evolution literature that they can get their hands on. Of course they do it to specifically to take evidence and quotes out of context, bait-and-switch definitions .…

I like to call it “disproofreading”.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Richard B. Hoppe published on June 15, 2010 2:11 PM.

In defense of Mary Midgley was the previous entry in this blog.

Steve Katt 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