Bruce Chapman—“The Pseudo-Science Guy”

| 113 Comments

by Steven Mahone

Bruce Chapman, the Big Cheese over at the Discovery Institute, is apparently feeling a bit threatened by an interview that Bill Nye (“The Science Guy”) recently did for the Seattle Times. Chapman wrote an article expressing concern that Bill’s straight talk about science literacy might somehow implicate his cherished “Intelligent Design” theory by lumping it in with young earth creationism, thereby leading some to conclude that ID is nothing more than the pseudo-scientific equivalent of those get-rich-working-from-home schemes so ubiquitous on the radio and Internet.

Nye is a respected, reasonable voice who is imploring our educators and politicians to cut to the chase and dispense with the myths and misunderstandings that cloud our public policy and educational system. Otherwise, the challenges set out before us will only be made more difficult to remedy. Nye knows that we have an obligation and a responsibility to leave our descendants with the intellectual insight and courage to take on the universe for what it is; there are no shortcuts, nor are there any get-rich-quick alternatives. How does Chapman react to Nye’s honorable efforts? He accuses him of being the “Red Herring Guy” and essentially calls him a liar. Geez.

The irony of the “Red Herring” claim is that Chapman has burdened Nye with naming a congressional district that has mandated equal time for young earth creationism; yet Nye has never made such a claim and Chapman knows it! The misdirection here is all Chapman’s, who evidently intends that you pay no attention to the Gallup Poll showing that nearly 50% of Americans believe that man was created less than 10,000 years ago. He’s also hoping that you separate his organization from those other creationist Ponzi schemes; all Chapman wants is the academic freedom to present alternatives to well-established scientific principles that have attained expert consensus. That’s not too much to ask, is it? Only if you ignore that pesky Dover trial, which settled this issue years ago. Unfortunately for Chapman, Nye has a pretty good memory.

While we’re at it, here are some of the other typical talking points that Chapman’s organization offers, along with a translation into the vernacular:

“Random mutation and natural selection can’t account for the complexity of the cell!” is equivalent to, “A single mother in Miami is now enjoying a Darwin free life after purchasing the DI’s new best seller on Cambrian explosion!”

The ever popular, “Highly qualified professors are being persecuted by the Darwinian establishment for simply suggesting alternative reading materials for their courses!” is actually, “The Designer still loves you, even if you’re taking a rigorous upper division physics course at a prestigious university run by heartless, amoral liberals.”

And finally, “Intelligent Design makes no claims about who the designer is, nor is it a religious idea!” can be summed up as, “Even though our Fellows at the DI appear on the same Christian programs as Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron, our claims are different and you need not be concerned that we didn’t make the Nobel Prize shortlist!”

Sorry, Mr. Chapman. The jig is up. You know it, Bill Nye knows it, and sooner rather than later, everyday people like me and that single mom in Miami are going to figure out that there’s no substitute for diligence and hard work, especially where the payoff will be long term success for our progeny. My concern now is how you’re going to handle the upcoming remake of Cosmos: A Space-time Odyssey which will be hosted by Neil deGrasse Tyson and underwritten by Fox (yes, the same Fox that employs Bill O’Reilly!) My suggestion is that you choose your insults carefully on this one. Remember in the movie “Casablanca” when the character of Rick (Humphrey Bogart) is asked, “You despise me, don’t you, Rick?” Bogart then utters the greatest back-handed slight of all time: “If I gave you any thought I probably would.” I recommend that you not put Dr. Tyson on the spot with a similar question.

Steven Mahone is an Engineer and a founding member of Colorado Citizens for Science.

113 Comments

Of course, Bruce Chapman could very easily shut Mr Nye and all other concerned critics of Intelligent Design up forever and ever and ever and ever if Mr Chapman could explain how Intelligent Design is supposed to be an explanation better than Evolutionary Biology.

But, Billy Dembski made it crystal clear that Intelligent Design is not an explanation, scientific or otherwise, period, when he angrily whined:

As for your example, I’m not going to take the bait. You’re asking me to play a game: “Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position.” ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it’s not ID’s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering.

If Intelligent Design makes no claim who the designer is and a random ID’er believes in the christian God does that mean that this particular ID’er accepts that the unspecified designer has designed the christian God at some point in his (the designer, that is) life? Or am I missing something?

Eddie Janssen said:

If Intelligent Design makes no claim who the designer is and a random ID’er believes in the christian God does that mean that this particular ID’er accepts that the unspecified designer has designed the christian God at some point in his (the designer, that is) life? Or am I missing something?

They routinely exempt their god from the necessity of design, even though it is presumably much more complex than the cells that they claim cannot have arisen without the aid of such a designer. I guess it’s just turtles all the way down.

Oh boy. “Equal time” = affirmative action for IDC. Whatever happen to the idea of meritocracy in America? I say “time in proportion to the evidence”.

The Discovery Institute’s creationist news page on the subject is about as bad as Dembski’s Judge Jones farting episode. Can anyone believe that a serious sane group would put up the Nye graphics that they created?

Chapman should review the mission statement of the Discovery Institute’s ID scam wing. The logo of God and Adam seems to negate what he claims about their intelligent designer.

http://web.archive.org/web/19980114[…]outcrsc.html

Intelligent Design makes no claims about who the designer is, nor is it a religious idea!

And Stevie’s junk book is based on science, according to his cheesy little piece. Of course Stevie actually writes:

The theory of intelligent design generates both excitement and loathing because, in addition to providing a compelling explanation of the scientific facts, it holds out the promise of help in integrating two things of supreme importance–science and faith–that have long been seen as at odds.

Well, it provides exactly no explanation of the scientific facts, and if faith is of supreme importance, it is for that reason left alone by the government. If the two are “integrated” by lies and force, clearly there is no way in which faith would not be taught as science.

It’s dishonest in other ways, such as in the way that science is not of “supreme importance” in the same way that faith is to many people (which is why it’s expendable for far too many). Science is wholly mundane, if extremely successful there. Stevie’s actually pitting science against religion in the usual disingenuous manner by putting them on the same level for the targeted believing audience.

But it’s not about religion, oh no.

Glen Davidson

IDC is a rationalization because it predicts EVERY outcome. If every single fossil were that of an organism alive today, that would support IDC and contradict evolution. The real fossil record supports evolution… and also IDC! They never lose!

That was a very well written blog post, thanks! That Gallup poll is disappointing, it doesn’t have a godless response, all the responses imply there is a god.

How about naming a school district that mandated the teaching of Intelligent Design.

That would be the Dover Area School District in 2004.

I wonder if Chappy can spell “Kitzmiller.”

ID is somewhat like fundamental particles - it has a dual nature, and its position can never be precisely measured.

When seeking funds, during Republican primaries, during closed conferences, when its advocates are working at Bible colleges, and at most other times, ID is about “faith”, and understood by everyone to be about right wing post-modern political fundamentalist Christianity, as practiced extensively in the US, to a slightly lesser degree in the rest of the Anglosphere, and in a variety of other places, such as Uganda. Stripped of overt use of the words “Jesus”, “God”, “Noah’s Ark”, “Global Flood”, and “less than ten thousand years” for purely legal considerations, of course.

However, whenever a science supporter points this out, ID immediately switches, and ID advocates become enraged at the suggestion that they peddle religious authoritarian science denial. It immediately becomes “just a coincidence” that 100% of politicians, school board members, and teachers who try to impose ID are right wing religious authoritarians. It immediately becomes just a strange coincidence, or the result of a dastardly plot, that ID advocates focus on high school curricula and hack books for the public - published by right wing, religion-heavy publishers - rather than serious scholarly work.

But as always, I’m ready to be convinced. All I ask is some answers to these basic questions.

1) Could any evidence convince you of the theory of evolution, and if so, what type of evidence is now lacking, that would convince you, if present?

2) The Supreme Court ruled against the direct teaching of Biblical Young Earth Creationism as science in public schools; however, if that ruling were overturned, which would you support more, teaching of ID, or direct teaching of Bible-based YEC?

3) Do you think it is important for opponents of the theory of evolution to fully understand the theory of evolution? If so, can you explain it, and if not, can you explain why not?

4) Who is the designer? How can we test your answer?

5) What did that designer do? How can we test your answer?

6) How did the designer do it? How can we test your answer?

7) When did the designer do it? How can we test your answer?

8) What is an example of something that was not designed by the designer?

The Bogart quote is perfect, I doubt that Nye or Tyson even know who Chapman is.

If creationism/ID is so good, let it go through the normal process of debate/scientific testing/peer review within the mainstream scientific community. No Discovery Institute green-screen labs. No fake ID “peer-review” journals. Do real science. True, creationism/intelligent design is opposed by the vast majority of scientists, especially those in geology/paleontology, biology, and physics; this all includes many Christian scientists and other scientists who are also theists. But, again, those rare scientists in biology, geology/paleontology that accept ID/creationism can step up to the plate and routinely do the scientific experiments, routinely publish in mainstream peer-review science journals, routinely show up at science meetings and seminars, etc, to help their side which might convince other scientists. This in itself could rather automatically get new science views into science classrooms.

But instead, ID/creationism advocates mainly try to use the legal and political process to short-circuit the scientific peer review process. How fair is this considering that other scientific ideas have to fight and earn their way to a scientific consensus?

Ron Okimoto said: The logo of God and Adam seems to negate what he claims about their intelligent designer.

I usually quote the first sentence of the Wedge Document: “The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built.” and ask “Does this make it sound like intelligent design creationism is more about religion or science?”

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmg[…]X_Zhn8#57cad said: And Stevie’s junk book is based on science, according to his cheesy little piece.

Remember that Stevie’s last two books were published by a religious book publisher, HarperOne, because no reputable science publisher would touch it with a twenty-foot pole. See http://www.harpercollins.com/imprin[…]intid=517991 for some of the companion books to “Signature in the Cell” and “Darwin’s Doubt.”

And remember that Stevie was named “Daniel of the Year” ( = “Man of the Year”) by “World Magazine” - do you think it was because of his science, or his religion? - see http://www.worldmag.com/2009/12/200[…]_of_the_year

(Hint: “World Magazine” claims to be a “Christian news magazine,” with a declared perspective of conservative evangelical Protestantism. Its mission statement is “To report, interpret, and illustrate the news…from a perspective committed to the Bible as the inerrant Word of God.”)

Additionally, from Judge Jones Memorandum Opinion Kitzmiller v Dover Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 342:

“Moreover, in turning to Defendants’ lead expert, Professor Behe, his testimony at trial indicated that ID is only a scientific, as opposed to a religious, project for him; however, considerable evidence was introduced to refute this claim. Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God. (P-718 at 705). As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition’s validity rests on belief in God, nor is the Court aware of any such scientific propositions, Professor Behe’s assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition.”

The Discovery Institute appears to not deny the existence of the Wedge Document. They even republish it. They simply maintain that they are misunderstood and misrepresented. They don’t want to “overthrow” science. They simply want “…to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.”

And what are their stated goals that they don’t deny, but claim were misunderstood?

To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.

To replace materialistic explanation with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

And how do they want to achieve those goals? Among other things…

Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation and repudiate(s) Darwinism.

Seminaries increasingly recognize [and] repudiate naturalistic presuppositions.

Positive uptake in public opinion polls on issues such as sexuality, abortion and belief in God.

Apologetics seminars and public speaking.

It seems pretty amazing that an organization that wants to be taken seriously in scientific circles would have as one of its major focuses the importance of Christian churches, seminaries, and Christian apologetics.

The Discovery Institutes’ response? “So what?”

Also notice their focus on “sexuality, abortion and belief in God”. These seem to be the pillars of the Tea Party and the “modern” Republican “culture warriors”. In this sense, the Discovery Institute appears to be achieving its primary political agenda.

It’s a scary thought.

Mahone and other posters speak of the Intelligent Design hypothesis in this thread, but all of them seem to be speaking (so far) as if readers/lurkers were automatically familiar with the specific details of that hypothesis.

However, that assumption may not be true for all readers/lurkers.

Therefore permit me to offer the following article to help clarify things:

FL

FL, everyone with more than one neuron knows about the ID scam. It is just out-of-date creationism repackaged as ID, this pseudoscience has been around for years. It was wrong then and is still wrong in its shiny new wrapper.

Show us the designer, show what he did, when and how. You know you can’t.

And where is the threat of hell with bbq sauce, you forgot that, hmmm, FL.

Two things that I’d like to point out about the question, “Are You Intelligently Designed?”

One is that this is a question about an individual, not about a collective (a population, a species, or a “kind”). If there is some problem about naturalistic/scientific/materialist investigations about the origins of individuals, then one is talking about reproductive biology (or maybe genetics or developmental biology), not about evolution.

The other is that even if there is some major difficulty in accounting for the origins of something-or-other by naturalistic/scientific/materialistic explanations, that is not enough to give an alternative account. There is no description of what happens, when and where, why or how, when an “Intelligent Design” event happens. All we have is “I can’t imagine how evolution works in this case”.

Are we supposed to believe, for example, that the reason that humans have a bodily structure so similar to the bodies of chimps and other apes is that some unspecified “Intelligent Designer(s)” wanted us to serve similar functions as those other primates? Or was it that the designer(s) were constrained by the materials that they were given to work with, and couldn’t have done it any other way?

Since we are on the subject of pseudo-science I find it appropriate that FL’s comment should be addressed with reference to what he actually is propagandizing:

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

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

FL said:

Mahone and other posters speak of the Intelligent Design hypothesis in this thread, but all of them seem to be speaking (so far) as if readers/lurkers were automatically familiar with the specific details of that hypothesis.

However, that assumption may not be true for all readers/lurkers.

Therefore permit me to offer the following article to help clarify things:

FL

Really? Mr. FL, are you really, sincerely, with full understanding of what you are doing, making the recommendation here at PT - a site dedicated to science - that reading your presudoscience blog is suitable for “clarifying things” with

So here’s my answer, in my own words, based on the writings of ID advocates such as mathematician Dr. William Dembski and biochemist Dr. Michael Behe.

Mr FL, the people interested in being duped and mislead by pseudoscience filtered trough your belief that the words of Dembski and Behe are Gospel truth deserve better! What they need to be told, things that I believe you wouldn’t ever even acknowledge exist: Refutation. Refutation so well documented and available the there’s no excuse for you or anyone else to be ignorant about it.

Why don’t you, as a confessing Christian, in the name of the Holy Spirit of Truth, tell the truth?

The truth is that as far as science is concerned, the hypothesis of Intelligent Design is nothing but repackaged creationism glaced with pseudoscientific arguments by people like Dembski and Behe.

Q: What is Intelligent Design?

A: Intelligent Design

Q: What is the purpose of Intelligent Design?

A: Wedge strategy

Mr. FL, How can you arrive at an informed opinion on the respective merits of the ToE vs. ID when, as far as I can tell, you do not bother to learn what the scientific community have arrived at by more than 150 years of research?

The scientific evidence is overwhelming. Whereas twenty years with Intelligent Design activity has not produced anything of value.

The latest addition to the library of useless Intelligent Design propaganda, Stephen Meyer’s “Darwins Doubt” only repeats old misrepresentations of the “Cambrian Explosion”.

It is not written with a honest desire to tell the true story as told by the current standing of the scientific exploration of the subject, but with the intent of presenting a distorted view for the purpose of making room for the ID-hypothesis.

Sandwalk, the blog of Larry Moran is one of the better sources of up-to-date and correct information about the controversy the ID movement are doing its best to create. Read it here: Stephen Meyer

Mr. FL, you have a lot of research to do! You are out of touch with science in the 21st century. Anyone with a sincere desire to know may learn the truth about the theory of evolution. The best before time for arguments from incredulity is long gone.

Are you capable of adjusting to the 21st century?

Paul Burnett said:

Ron Okimoto said: The logo of God and Adam seems to negate what he claims about their intelligent designer.

I usually quote the first sentence of the Wedge Document: “The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built.” and ask “Does this make it sound like intelligent design creationism is more about religion or science?”

The first sentence of the mission statement is the same. They can’t deny that it is their mission statement and not just a “fund raising” document.

THE proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West’s greatest achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences.

And it is followed later in the mission statement with:

Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its damning cultural legacies.

Not much left to the imagination, and you can also see their logo of God and Adam if you go to my link in the first post. This was the official mission statement that they had up for several years before they changed the name of their ID scam division.

FL said:

Mahone and other posters speak of the Intelligent Design hypothesis in this thread, but all of them seem to be speaking (so far) as if readers/lurkers were automatically familiar with the specific details of that hypothesis.

However, that assumption may not be true for all readers/lurkers.

Therefore permit me to offer the following article to help clarify things:

FL

Well, first I will assume that this is a “yes” answer from you to question 3 (of 16) over on the BW. Good to know – you supports lying to kids. That is a form of child abuse in my opinion.

From your own blog we read:

http://cjonline.com/blog-post/contr[…]tly-designed

“Many people – including young people – are seriously asking about the ID hypothesis, even today. They already know that the ID hypothesis, if true, would chop and drop the theory of evolution.”

Actually, that is doubtful. And that is a very BIG IF! The real scientific community (which is really the only place that counts in this case) only mocks the “hypothesis,” because in twenty plus years it has produced zero useful results in advancing our understanding of nature and no one (including the proponents of ID) can devise any method of testing it that stands up to any scientific scrutiny.

“After all, YOU are the biggest confirmation of the ID hypothesis; YOU are the biggest disproof of the theory of evolution.”

Please note that FL does not provide one piece of objective evidence to support either of those assertions! He just pulls them straight out of his …thin air.

“1. Specified Complexity – the best way to describe SC, is like the sentences and paragraphs you’re reading here. Each sentence and paragraph is way too specific and at the same time way too complex, to have originated from natural causes.

(Your own DNA is like a complex language communication system or a very complicated computer algorithm, isn’t it? Better start asking how all that complex specified programming popped up inside you!)”

Floyd, calculate the specified complexity (or the CSI – both are Dembski invented jargon; very sciency) of this sentence, a blueberry pie, and a one kilogram piece of quartz. (Hint: Dembski can’t do it, hence – “that really looks complex to me, so it must have been intelligently designed.” Maybe that’s why Dembski backed out of testifying in Kitzmiller??? You think? Maybe?)

And DNA is nothing like human language or computer programming. You don’t know anything at all about DNA, physics, chemistry, or information theory, do you? You better start reading some actual scientific papers, huh? Maybe you better skip the peer-reviewed stuff for now and just try some Elsberry, Shallit, or Rosenhouse.

“2. Irreducible Complexity – it’s a special case of specified complexity (Dembski), and the best way to describe IC is like those cheap mousetraps you buy at Wal-Mart. As Behe suggests, all parts of a mousetrap system MUST be present and work together all at the same time, in order for that system to fulfill its purpose. Mousetraps don’t appear via natural causes. Each part must be in its proper place all at once, AND all the pieces must work together correctly all at once, or else the system doesn’t catch mice, doesn’t fulfill its purpose. So when you see a working mousetrap, you’re seeing an object that displays Irreducible Complexity.”

Oh, wow. You are still trotting this trash out? Please see:

http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdm[…]ICDmyst.html

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/e[…]usetrap.html

Any wonder Behe got trounced at Dover? It is inexcusable that you are unaware of any of this. Or, are you just lying? Apparently, we have established that you support lying to kids, so …

”(By the way, multiple and compelling examples of Irreducible Complexity, can be found inside your own two eyes, right here and now. Go figure!)”

You go figure – prove it! (That means EVIDENCE, PLEASE!)

“So you get the picture. Specified Complexity and Irreducible Complexity are the markers that signal the presence of Intelligent Design in whatever you’re looking at. So now here’s the ID hypothesis:

1. Specified Complexity and/or Irreducible Complexity are well-defined and empirically detectable.

2. Undirected natural causes, like naturalistic evolution, cannot explain Specified Complexity and/or Irreducible Complexity.

3. Intelligent causation best explains Specified Complexity and/or Irreducible Complexity.

That’s an actual 3-point scientific hypothesis of Intelligent Design. And yes, it IS scientific, because that hypothesis makes a testable prediction which can be falsified in the real world. Here’s the testable prediction:

“The concept of intelligent design entails a strong prediction that is readily falsifiable. In particular, the concept of intelligent design predicts that complex information, such as that encoded in a functioning genome, NEVER arises from purely chemical or physical antecedents. Experience will show that only intelligent agency gives rise to functional information. All that is necessary to falsify the hypothesis of intelligent design is to show confirmed instances of purely physical or chemical antecedents producing such information.” – philosopher of science Dr. Stephen Meyer with Dr. Mark Hartwig, from the textbook “Of Pandas and People”, 2nd ed, 1993.”

Is that the same “Of Pandas and People” that was ripped to shreds at Dover?? I get the picture that you do not have the slightest idea what science is or how it is done. Please describe how YOU would set up an experiment to test this “hypothesis” this afternoon. And see this:

http://www.talkreason.org/articles/wrong.cfm

As I said, you don’t have any idea what science is or how it is done. But,

“Therefore YOU are the final disproof of Evolution, Atheism, and Agnosticism. YOU are intelligently designed, by You-Know-Who upstairs. So send Him an email and talk things over soon!”

That appears very dogmatic to me. I thought ID didn’t have anything to do with your You-Know-Who upstairs or religion in general.

Keelyn said: Floyd, calculate the specified complexity (or the CSI – both are Dembski invented jargon; very sciency) of this sentence, a blueberry pie, and a one kilogram piece of quartz.

ISTM that there are a lot of unanswered questions about “complexity”.

Does a kilogram piece of quartz have low complexity? If so, does that mean that it is not designed? (I thought that all things are creatures of God.)

Is the complexity in a piece of quartz proportional to the amount of quartz? Does half of that one kilogram piece of quartz have half the complexity? How about the molecules that make up the piece of quartz? How about the electrons and quarks and the part of space-time that it occupies, how much complexity do those have?

How about the complexity of a species, as compared with the complexity of an individual member of the species?

If I design a perpetual motion machine, does that have a lot of complexity, even though it doesn’t exist?

Chapman’s obliviousness to the existence and character of the YEC contingent in the “design” campaign is of a piece with all his compatriots at the DI, even though they know it is there. I recently brought this very topic up with their John West (lecturing at a Seattle church with Casey Luskin on the science-religion divide) inviting him to recount some of the instances where he had advised creationists to not put their material in the schools (he has never written of these episodes in any EN&V reports, to be sure) but got mainly a deer in teh headlights expression from him. Luskin and fossil matters were the main reason for my being there, which I cover at spokanefavs.com (I’m their atheist blogger!) on “Jimmy in the lions Den, or: a merry weekend of intelligent design lectures” at http://spokanefavs.com/culture/scie[…]ign-lectures.

I understand Nye will be attending CFI’s October gathering in Tacoma, so hope to meet him there and give him a good job high five. Anybody who draws the ire of Bruce Chapman is jake with me, as the old saying goes (I have been dubbed “smarmy” by Saint Bill Dembski himself, incidently, to which I objected that in fact I am an arrogant bastard, and nothing less).

The real scientific community

How odd that you felt compelled to employ a qualifier, instead of just saying “the scientific community.”

So tell me – how do you objectively and rationally distinquish “the real scientific community” from “the scientific community”?

FL

Easy. Just look for the ones who are doing science, as distinguished from those who snipe from the sidelines.

FL said:

The real scientific community

How odd that you felt compelled to employ a qualifier, instead of just saying “the scientific community.”

So tell me – how do you objectively and rationally distinquish “the real scientific community” from “the scientific community”?

FL

Richard B. Hoppe said:

Easy. Just look for the ones who are doing science, as distinguished from those who snipe from the sidelines.

FL said:

The real scientific community

How odd that you felt compelled to employ a qualifier, instead of just saying “the scientific community.”

So tell me – how do you objectively and rationally distinquish “the real scientific community” from “the scientific community”?

FL

Well I guess that classifies Floyd very nicely.

FL said:

The real scientific community

How odd that you felt compelled to employ a qualifier, instead of just saying “the scientific community.”

So tell me – how do you objectively and rationally distinquish “the real scientific community” from “the scientific community”?

FL

Why should we (be forced to) assume that Intelligent Design proponents are members of “the real scientific community” when Intelligent Design proponents simultaneously avoid doing any science at all, and do all within their collective power to harm and hinder scientific progress and science education?

Some years ago, FL used to brag nonstop about how he had this “3-plank theory” that would explain exactly how Intelligent Design was supposed to be a science, as well as explain exactly how Intelligent Design was supposed to not be religious. At one point, FL even tried begging some of the admins to let him post on Panda’s Thumb about it.

Of course, they ignored his inane request, and, unsurprisingly, FL never ever got around to elucidating what his “theory” said. In fact, the closest FL has ever gotten to in explaining his “theory” is to lie through his teeth about having explained it in the first place while refusing to so much as paraphrase whatever it was he allegedly said.

Richard B. Hoppe said:

Easy. Just look for the ones who are doing science, as distinguished from those who snipe from the sidelines.

FL said:

The real scientific community

How odd that you felt compelled to employ a qualifier, instead of just saying “the scientific community.”

So tell me – how do you objectively and rationally distinquish “the real scientific community” from “the scientific community”?

FL

And so I wrote:

By the way, multiple and compelling examples of Irreducible Complexity, can be found inside your own two eyes, right here and now. Go figure!

And so Keelyn replied,

You go figure – prove it! (That means EVIDENCE, PLEASE!)

Fair enough. So, permit me to provide good evidence for good Keelyn.

Here’s the first one:

The following five minimum refractive-improving requirements can be identified, which must appear simultaneously in the vitreous fluid (inside your eye), in Nilsson and Pelger’s “step 1034.”

First, the new protein local density must be appreciably greater than the protein concentrarions in the surrounding area in order to be subject to (natural) selection.

Second, the protein concentration must also appear in the proper location, i.e., it must be in the center of aperture or, for example, a peripheral concentrated region would blur the image.

Third and fourth respectively, the new protein concentrated region must display not only a proper shape but also a correct orientation within its proper location.

This means that the protein concentrated region must accidentally and immediately possess adequate regularly curved surfaces on a general elliptical form whose shorter diameter is accidentally oriented at right angles to the plane of the aperture of the eye. Either an irregular asymmetrical region, or a tilted axis, would blur the image.

Fifth, the protein concentration must immediately have an adequate degree of transparency because a foggy concentration would block vision.

These five aspects must be present in adequate magnitude in one accidental step in order to elevate visual acuity.

.…(The) initial protein concentrated region is nothing less than a tiny but adequately sized, located, shaped, oriented, clear functioning lens in ONE step, all of which has occurred when needed by a mutational copying error within a real time frame of 200 years.

In one step, (the evolutionists) Nilsson and Pelger proceed from NO lens, to a lens. This is NOT evolution; this is singularity, this is mega-saltationism.

– adapted from John T. Baldwin article, “The Argument from Sufficient Initial System Organization as a Continuing Challenge to the Darwinian Rate and Method of Transitional Evolution”, Christian Scholars Review, Vol. XXIV, No. 4. (May 1995), pp. 423-443.

Okay, that’s the first evidence. You see all that good hearty Irreducible Complexity there?

You’d be stone blind right this minute without it, folks. Think about it.

****

Meanwhile, since I did say “multiple examples”, I am obligated to supply at least one more evidence. So here it is, for you:

Review of this and the last two columns clearly demonstrates:

** the extreme complexity and physiological interdependence of many parts of the eyeball

** the absolute necessity of many specific biomolecules reacting in exactly the right order to allow for photoreceptor cells and other neurons to transmit nervous impulses to the brain

** the presence of, not only an eyeball whose size is in the proper order to allow for focusing by the cornea and lens, but also a region in the retina (fovea) that is outfitted with the proper concentration of photoreceptor cells that are connected to the brain in a 1:1:1 fashion to allow for clear vision

** that vision is dependent on a complex array of turned around, upside down, split-up, and overlapping messages, from over two million optic nerve fibers that course their way to the visual cortex causing a neuroexcitatory spatial pattern that is interpreted as sight,

– from Dr. Howard Glickman, M.D., “Vision Part 3–What Does The Brain See?”,

http://www.arn.org/docs/glicksman/eyw_041201.htm

What Dr. Glickman is describing there, of course, is pure Irreducible Complexity.

And that’s on TOP of the Irreducible Complexity of the human eye lens that JT Baldwin pointed out.

You have plenty of evidence now.

****

Therefore every time you look in your toothpaste-stained bathroom mirror, every time you see your custom-built, fingerprint-unique eyes in that mirror, YOU DISPROVE THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION. That’s right.

You scientifically falsify all that worthless Atheism and Agnosticism and Evolution mess, every time you visually examine these Pandasthumb discussion pages and post your assorted comments.

So tell me – how do you feel about that situation? Hm?

The hearing ear and the seeing eye, The Lord has made both of them.

– Prov. 20:12

FL

harold said: I don’t think cells were created by magic, but if they were, it happened billions of years ago and they’ve been evolving ever since.

Even if natural processes were not enough to account for things as recent as the Cambrian diversification - heck, even if natural processes were not enough to account for the appearance of mammals, if anybody were so out of touch with reality as to claim that - there is still the fact that evolution has been going on for hundreds of millions of years. (Nobody has even speculated about some other account of what was going on for all that time, if it wasn’t descent with modification.)

esus H. Christ on a shingle. Floyd can’t even comment on a paper that he claims to have read. All he can do is another cheap cut and paste by some know nothing science wannabes about some other know nothing science wannabes. And of course he ignores all of the relevant SCIENTIFIC literature on the subject and expects everyone to just ignore the fact that he hasn’t got a clue what he is talking about.

In any event, all his bluff and bluster is completely off topic for this thread, so once again it is time to dump his smarmy ass to the bathroom wall. Or you could learn you lesson and have it done automatically whenever he tries to join an adult conversation. Same goes for the ignorant Stevie pee pee.

Steve P. said:

clever one, phhhht.…and shrewd at that.

…but why contest the obvious.…what? you need God to speak into a megaphone; jump up and down yelling for you to look His way, is that it?

.…that would be a puny God’s tactic.

nawh, God is perfectly fine waiting on you to fish out your last round tuit. Time is not an issue.

But having to spoon feed reality to creation is a bit tedious, don’t you think?

pushing molecules around is not what God had in Mind.

You are making a claim that the diversities of life and the mechanics of the diversities of life are all the result of God Intelligently Designing magically poofing everything together, and not biological evolution.

And now you’re confessing that we all must blindly accept whatever Bullshit for Jesus you spout because you’re just too lazy to make even the most paltry effort to show or explain to us? And that we’re all a bunch of idiots if we do not blindly accept your pathetic excuse?

Steve P. said:

pushing molecules around is not what God had in Mind.

So now you tell us that you know the very minds of your gods.

You’re a deluded loony, SkevieP. Your gods are products of a delusional disorder. They are not real.

Mike Elzinga said:

Keelyn said:

Steve P. said:

So what is it that drives your denial of the obvious?

That is what everyone has been trying to figure out about you. So, what is it that drives your denial of the obvious? Besides fear I mean. Is there anything else?

Steve P(roulx) is a peddler of Taiwanese textiles with a history of being an Internet bar brawler always prowling for a fight. He does this everywhere he shows up. Nothing else matters to him.

Well, he doesn’t appear particularly adept (inept, perhaps) at his brawling, Mike. He gets his backside kicked all over his IDC deity’s “creation” and has to disappear for a month or two (or more) to let his wounds heal.

I have not read any later papers by Dan-Erik Nilsson, and I have not read Nilsson and Pelger in a long time. But roughly what they did was this:

They devised a possible scenario for the evolution of a camera-type eye, based on the types of eyes that are found in different phyla, from a simple eyespot, through a concavity, an eye with a cornea, and an eye with a cornea and a lens, to name a few. In each case, they changed some parameter by 1 % and continued until changing that parameter resulted in no further improvement. Thus, for example, they made the concavity deeper and deeper, until there was no improvement in performance. Then they added a cornea. The increment of 1 % was chosen for convenience and represented many generations. No random variable was involved. The calculation was very sophisticated and involved such parameters as signal-to-noise ratio, as well as more-obvious parameters like angular field of view.

Their calculation was not a computer simulation, but Richard Dawkins, in River out of Eden, seems to have thought it was. Big deal.

Keelyn said:

Mike Elzinga said:

Keelyn said:

Steve P. said:

So what is it that drives your denial of the obvious?

That is what everyone has been trying to figure out about you. So, what is it that drives your denial of the obvious? Besides fear I mean. Is there anything else?

Steve P(roulx) is a peddler of Taiwanese textiles with a history of being an Internet bar brawler always prowling for a fight. He does this everywhere he shows up. Nothing else matters to him.

Well, he doesn’t appear particularly adept (inept, perhaps) at his brawling, Mike. He gets his backside kicked all over his IDC deity’s “creation” and has to disappear for a month or two (or more) to let his wounds heal.

I would assume that that is what he does on every site he infests. That’s just what cowards do.

Anyway, you changed the subject to abiogenesis again.

Only if you totally missed or totally ignored the clear question that appeared at the end of my post.

If you agree thus far (or partially agree) with what I’ve said, then would you be willing to consider that the same principle (that ID chops Evo if ID is true or Evo chops ID if Evo is true) might be true for the human eye or the human eye lens?

****

By the way, Dave Luckett has a wonderfully eloquent post about you on the BW. Why don’t read it. :)

Okay, that’s done.

Since you called attention to it, do you care to defend it? Water-carriers are always in demand on the BW.

FL

Let’s talk about FL.

What does ID say about the development of the eye? What evidence is used to support this notion? How will this notion further our knowledge about genetics, development, and physiology?

I know you’ll get right to ignoring those three questions as you have ignored all of my questions on the bathroom wall.

FL said:

Anyway, you changed the subject to abiogenesis again.

Only if you totally missed or totally ignored the clear question that appeared at the end of my post.

If you agree thus far (or partially agree) with what I’ve said, then would you be willing to consider that the same principle (that ID chops Evo if ID is true or Evo chops ID if Evo is true) might be true for the human eye or the human eye lens?

****

By the way, Dave Luckett has a wonderfully eloquent post about you on the BW. Why don’t read it. :)

Okay, that’s done.

Since you called attention to it, do you care to defend it? Water-carriers are always in demand on the BW.

FL

No one knows how abiogenesis came about. I daresay no one ever will know for certain. After all, science does not deal in certainty.

So what?

We already know several plausible ways life may have arisen, and one of those may be correct. Or more than one. We don’t know which one, if any.

So what?

You speak as though that ignorance is somehow a telling blow against biochemistry, against the ToE.

It’s not.

Your position is indefensible, FL. Ignorance does not entail the supernatural. There is no reason whatever to suppose that gods or leprechauns or sky fairies magically poofed life into existence. That’s nothing more than personal incredulity, god-of-the-gaps, magical thinking.

That is the reasoning of a man whose rationality is warped by religious delusion.

ogremk5 said:

Let’s talk about FL. …

I know you’ll get right to ignoring those three questions as you have ignored all of my questions on the bathroom wall.

Actually, you’re far down the list. He has lots of other ignoring to do first.

Just Bob said:

ogremk5 said:

Let’s talk about FL. …

I know you’ll get right to ignoring those three questions as you have ignored all of my questions on the bathroom wall.

Actually, you’re far down the list. He has lots of other ignoring to do first.

No no. He’s been ignoring me since the great FL debate thread about 5 years ago on AtBC. I’m first in line to be ignored.

I first encountered FL back in the Kansas Citizens for Science days and he hasn’t changed a bit since then. Hasn’t learned anything, hasn’t changed his tune. Same old FL.

Doc Bill said:

I first encountered FL back in the Kansas Citizens for Science days and he hasn’t changed a bit since then. Hasn’t learned anything, hasn’t changed his tune. Same old FL.

That’s why I ignore him, although I often read others’ responses

That, and the fact that he’s a bigoted turd.

If you want to know in a nutshell what is wrong with creationist “research,” take a look at Andrew Fabich announcing his “research” talk over at AiG.

He is an assistant professor at Liberty “University” and has “gone ahead and repeated the research as all good scientists should.” He asks, “So why should he stretch myself?”

How much research can a young assistant professor at Liberty “University” repeat? How did he manage to pack over a century of research by thousands of researchers into a few months?

Matt G said:

Hey, what ever happened to those secret labs where ID research was being conducted? They had to be hidden so evolution supporters couldn’t find them and cause trouble.

They hid them so well the ID researchers couldn’t find them either.

The poor ID researchers have been wandering around, lost in the parking lot for 20 years.

Someone should bring them a club sandwich (but don’t let them ask for no mayo. a club sandwich is irreducibly complex).

nobodythatmatters said:

Matt G said:

Hey, what ever happened to those secret labs where ID research was being conducted? They had to be hidden so evolution supporters couldn’t find them and cause trouble.

They hid them so well the ID researchers couldn’t find them either.

The poor ID researchers have been wandering around, lost in the parking lot for 20 years.

Someone should bring them a club sandwich (but don’t let them ask for no mayo. a club sandwich is irreducibly complex).

The Discovery Institute’s lab is hidden inside of a PO box in Seattle.

Just Bob said:

Doc Bill said:

I first encountered FL back in the Kansas Citizens for Science days and he hasn’t changed a bit since then. Hasn’t learned anything, hasn’t changed his tune. Same old FL.

That’s why I ignore him, although I often read others’ responses

That, and the fact that he’s a bigoted turd.

Yeah, I chased him around with Flud calculations for a while and he would never give me an answer to where the water came from and where it went. He changed the subject so many times I finally gave up. I think he might be the LUCA troll.

…but also Ken Miller, and Keith Miller (geologist at Kansas State University), Francisco J. Ayala (genetics professor, a key lead expert witness for plaintiffs in Mclean v. Arkansas court case inwhich the plaintiffs successfully stopped so-called ‘creation science’), Frances Collins (who led the Human Genome Project among other endeavors), etc, etc. These and other scientists routinely publish their scientific research in mainstream peer-review journals and are also theists yet they reject ID and other variations of creationism as pseudoscience.

Ogremk5 and others have already addressed some of the ID “scientists” you listed. As least Michael Behe has published a moderate number of legit science (non-ID) articles in legit mainstream science journals. But Behe also admitted this under oath at Kitzmiller trial:

“there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred”

Steve P. said:

Oh, you mean Dawkins, PZ, and Coyne? Why, naturally they are doing science whereas Dembski, Marks, Ewert, Behe, Myers and Durston are not.

Clear as a bell.

Richard B. Hoppe said:

Easy. Just look for the ones who are doing science, as distinguished from those who snipe from the sidelines.

FL said:

The real scientific community

How odd that you felt compelled to employ a qualifier, instead of just saying “the scientific community.”

So tell me – how do you objectively and rationally distinquish “the real scientific community” from “the scientific community”?

FL

And the reason why there is no Intelligent Design research or Creationism research being subjected to peer review is because research is deadly anathema to Intelligent Design proponents and Creationists. Why else would Steve P arrogantly turn up his nose at the idea of having to support his moronically inane, evidence-free assertions? We’ve already mortally offended him by not swallowing his Bullshit for Jesus without question, after all.

Tenncrain said:

…but also Ken Miller, and Keith Miller (geologist at Kansas State University), Francisco J. Ayala (genetics professor, a key lead expert witness for plaintiffs in Mclean v. Arkansas court case inwhich the plaintiffs successfully stopped so-called ‘creation science’), Frances Collins (who led the Human Genome Project among other endeavors), etc, etc. These and other scientists routinely publish their scientific research in mainstream peer-review journals and are also theists yet they reject ID and other variations of creationism as pseudoscience.

Ogremk5 and others have already addressed some of the ID “scientists” you listed. As least Michael Behe has published a moderate number of legit science (non-ID) articles in legit mainstream science journals. But Behe also admitted this under oath at Kitzmiller trial:

“there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred”

Steve P. said:

Oh, you mean Dawkins, PZ, and Coyne? Why, naturally they are doing science whereas Dembski, Marks, Ewert, Behe, Myers and Durston are not.

Clear as a bell.

Richard B. Hoppe said:

Easy. Just look for the ones who are doing science, as distinguished from those who snipe from the sidelines.

FL said:

The real scientific community

How odd that you felt compelled to employ a qualifier, instead of just saying “the scientific community.”

So tell me – how do you objectively and rationally distinquish “the real scientific community” from “the scientific community”?

FL

Steve P said:

What, Dembski/Marks/Ewert/Durston/Myer are not doing research??

Oh, right their works doesn’t count because its all LIES, LIES, and more LIES!!!!!!!!!

Darwinian evolution is TRUTH, baby!

You hit the nail right on the head:

…Dembski now tours churches, charging money to give talks about how ID proves God, but simultaneously, how ID really isn’t about religion so can be taught in public schools.

(Rational Wiki)

Yeah, I chased him around with Flud calculations for a while and he would never give me an answer to where the water came from and where it went.

Then you missed a certain piece of information (or two) Doc, but I’m putting it on the BW because this thread is not about the Noahic Flood.

You won’t agree with that info, but let’s see if you even read it or not.

FL

Liar for Jesus whined:

Yeah, I chased him around with Flud calculations for a while and he would never give me an answer to where the water came from and where it went.

Then you missed a certain piece of information (or two) Doc, but I’m putting it on the BW because this thread is not about the Noahic Flood.

You won’t agree with that info, but let’s see if you even read it or not.

FL

Spamming us with a URL without saying anything, save after repeated duress does not an argument, let alone a convincing argument, make.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Matt Young published on July 28, 2013 11:15 AM.

Ideas for figures - comments welcome was the previous entry in this blog.

We can say a lot in 1000 words, and a few pictures. 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 4.38

Site Meter