Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive

New York Times ^ | August 21, 2005 | JODI WILGOREN

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"So, Carolinaguitarman. What's your background? Running the Museum of Natural Science, or goatherding? 'Course, you seem to think it doesn't matter. You're simply anointed. Step up, my man. What's your background?"

Appeals to authority as your only argument make you look like a fool. I won't take your bait.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking pretty much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.

2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and "fully formed."

This is straight out of Darwin's Origin of Species. I know you have not read it.

"Bad manners seems to be a characteristic of you evos."

And blinding stupidity seems to be your calling card. I'll take bad manners.

[Just mythoughts]

One does have to be concerned for the treatment of nonconformist students in classrooms.

No wonder we now have to have self esteem classes in public education.

Thanks to Darwin Central we have out of their own mouths, who evolutionists are and their method of operation.

Evolutionists attempt to taint anybody who even questions them as lying, bible thumping, snake handling, trailer trash.

What a wealth of data they have provided in the attempt to preserve evolution.

[Timmy]

LOL. I never doubted it. So, we are just to believe some guy on the internet who calls himself Carolinaguitarman, and who won't even state his authority as to why we should listen to him? You see, oh great [self] anointed one, maybe we're not quite so stupid as you believed. On that, I'm going to bed. Cheers.

[Timmy]

This is straight out of Darwin's Origin of Species. I know you have not read it.

Nope. That's Gould. And your name-calling isn't any better an argument now than it's been so far. Weak minds and all that, y'know.

[longshadow]

quote mine busted.

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/jan03.html

Actually, I can't find where Prigogine ever said what the "quote" claims he said. Thus, it isn't a "quotemine" as much as it appears to have been a complete fabrication.

See my #312 this thread for more details.

The only websites that have this "quote" are anti-Evo sites. Of the ones that bother to give a source citation, they point to a paper published by Prigogine and his co-authors in the November 1972 issue of Physics Today.

It just so happens that that paper is available online, and text search does NOT turn up the quoted text at all. Thus, either the attribution for the "quote" is wrong or it is a fabrication.

In any case, it completely misrepresents Prigogine's work with regard to thermodynamics and biological evolution, as anyone familiar with his work can attest. That being the case, I think it is safe to say this "quote" is likely a complete fabrication.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"LOL. I never doubted it. So, we are just to believe some guy on the internet who calls himself Carolinaguitarman, and who won't even state his authority as to why we should listen to him? You see, oh great [self] anointed one, maybe we're not quite so stupid as you believed. On that, I'm going to bed. Cheers."

Morons like you bow down to *titles* and *authority*. People like me care about arguments and evidence. My *authority* is my argument. You deal with that or you forfeit the debate. Whether I am a janitor or a Nobel prize winner is irrelevant. What matters is what is the argument I am putting forth. You want us to admit defeat because your idols have P.H.D.' regardless of what their arguments are? That's what myrmidons do. Science does not need to appeal with authority.

[js1138]

It must be great to be a creationist and be able to claim the support of a Nobel prize winner after he wins a Nobel prize for cutting your legs off.

[donh]

Sigh. Don't know why I bother. Jonathan Wells and Michael Behe have PhD's in moledular biology. Many other critics have similar background.

So what? I'm sure thousands of scientists work out their horoscopes in the morning paper--does that make astrology a science? Do you think you and three buddies can get together and start your own version of science, sans peer-reviewed reporting on the results of their potentially dis-confirming experiments or forensic field studies in scientific journals?

Even Stephen Jay Gould admitted the fossil record didn't support Darwinism (ever hear of punctuated equilibrium?).

This one has a strong scent of coming directly off a creationist talking point list. Punctuated equilibrium was predicted by Darwin, and in no manner refutes Darwinian theory.

But all these folks are stupid compared to donH, Patrick Henry, and VadeRetro, none of whom will stand up and state their qualifications to call someone else ignorant in how they evaluate the arguments for and against. It's like arguing with liberals. Ugliness, insults and name-calling is all you've got.

Are you even out of high school yet?, you're not going to make any points out of what looks like a career commitment to an ad homonem argument you are too intellectually challenged to come up with yourself.

You've been offered the evidence, and it is still the evidence that science has to offer, even if we are all green slime mold from Jupiter, and either you can mount a counter-argument based on evidence and reason, or you can't--so far, I'm betting on "can't", based on the available evidence of your incapacity to come up with an argument that isn't based on this sort cargo-cult celebrity testimonial approach you have to scientific reasoning.

[longshadow]

It must be great to be a creationist and be able to claim the support of a Nobel prize winner after he wins a Nobel prize for cutting your legs off.

Yeah; VR and I discussed this very thing up the thread this morning. I suspect method to their madness.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Nope. That's Gould"

From Darwin:

"But I must here remark that I do not suppose that the process ever goes on so regularly as is represented in the diagram, though in itself made somewhat irregular, nor that it goes on continuously; it is far more probable that each form remains for long periods unaltered, and then again undergoes modification. (Darwin, Ch. 4, "Natural Selection," pp. 152)

"It is a more important consideration ... that the period during which each species underwent modification, though long as measured by years, was probably short in comparison with that during which it remained without undergoing any change." (Darwin, Ch. 10, "On the imperfection of the geological record," p. 428)

"... natural selection will generally act very slowly, only at long intervals of time, and only on a few of the inhabitants of the same region. I further believe that these slow, intermittent results accord well with what geology tells us of the rate and manner at which the inhabitants of the world have changed." (Darwin, Ch. 4, "Natural Selection," pp. 140-141)


My point that Darwin was not that far from PE stands.

"And your name-calling isn't any better an argument now than it's been so far. Weak minds and all that, y'know."

I was just pointing out the obvious fact you had not read Gould or Darwin. Sorry you took that so personally.

[js1138]

I freely admit I'm an engineer.

I know this is unfair, but I couldn't resist.

[narby]

As I understand it, there have been such findings, about 28 incidents I believe.

28 incidents that cannot be explained by some geologic action? Or just 28 incidents where we just don't know the details with enough certainty?

I suppose I set myself for some kind of "gotcha" here, but 28 incidents where the geologic record is weird doesn't seem surprising out of the hundreds of thousands of sites explored for 200 years. That, and creationist science sources are so very lousy. Which is understandable, since they already know their conclusion, they're merely looking for enough evidence to support it.

Doesn't macroevolution rely on random chance?

No more than you rely on random chance in your drive to work every morning.

Granted, there's is considerable randomness in exactly who is in the car next to you. There's some randomness in the mood of those in the other cars, and whether or not they'll smack into you. But in the end, randomness is not *the* method you use to get to work, even though it does play a small part.

Evolution, same thing.

[narby]

Evolutionists attempt to taint anybody who even questions them as lying, bible thumping, snake handling, trailer trash.

I haven't heard anyone cop to snake handling. But I've seen so much of the rest of those around here to get the impression it's the norm.

I actually saw, probably for the first time, a creationist the other day actually discuss the evolution issue honestly. He was actually interested in what the evidence was for evolution, and what it meant. He wasn't convinced, yet. But he was honestly looking at the situation.

I was impressed. Forget his name, someone else was corresponding to him. I just lurked.

Your other description fits all the other creationists around here.

[js1138]

Evolutionists attempt to taint anybody who even questions them as lying, bible thumping, snake handling, trailer trash.

Part of that impression is self-imposed. the continued use of Second Law arguments. Out of context or fabricated quotes attributed to famous scientists, the unwillingness of creationist to police their own when sill and discredited arguments are posted -- all this looks like what you said.

[narby]

Morons like you bow down to *titles* and *authority*.

I few weeks ago I perused a pro-evolution link list and there was a post listing a half dozen or more bogus Phd's that are famous creationists.

I can't for the life of me think where it is right now. I don't think on Talkorigins and for sure not on PH's list. Although I think I asked him if he'd list it. Can't find it now though.

Anyway, it's out there. Genuine Bogus creationist Phd's.

[Just mythoughts]

Hey I probably disagree with the majority of creationists, and I have not advocated them teaching biology. I do respect their right to choose what to believe and I am not required to fund them.

What you are not recognizing is that comments regarding the ignorance of creationists is not going to help save evolution. Not to mention the mocking of Christ and communion.

Darwin Central does not realize that more than their crowd lurk and they have left plenty to present to parents seeking school board positions.

[narby]

This is from here

--"Dr" Richard Bliss, who develops curriculum materials for the Institute for Creation Research, has a doctorate in education from the University of Sarisota in Florida, an unaccredited diploma mill that is located in a hotel.

--"Dr" Kelly Segraves, a co-founder of the Creation Science Research Center, claims to have an MA and DSc degree. The doctorate is supposed to be an honorary degree from "Christian University", but no such place exists in the United States. Segraves dropped the "Dr" from his name in 1981. His Masters is supposed to come from "Sequoia University", but this doesn't exist either. There is a Sequoia College in California, but it has no record of a student named Segraves.

--"Dr" Harold Slusher, a co-founder of the Creation Research Society, claims to have an earned PhD from Columbia Pacific University and an honorary DSc from Indiana Christian University. Indiana Christian is a Bible college, while Columbia Pacific is an unaccredited diploma mill.

--"Dr" Clifford Burdick of the Creation Research Society got his doctorate from the University of Physical Sciences in Arizona, which consists of a post office box at an unaccredited institute in Phoenix.

--"Dr" Carl Baugh, of the Creation Evidences Museum near Glen Rose, Texas, has a PhD in anthropology from the College of Advanced Education, an unaccredited Bible college on the grounds of the Sherwood Park Baptist Church. He has another PhD from the California Graduate School of Theology, an unaccredited college in California.

[Just mythoughts]

Justify it however you so choose, but do you really think that it appeals to parents sending their children into public schools who already believe evolution is a lie.


Hey I am not going to ask Darwin Central to stop their methods, cause I would not mind one bit to see evolution funding pulled. What I was not convinced of about evolution before I started reading these threads, I am convinced more than ever it is a disgusting dirty religion.

I do not care what people believe, but I resent being require to pay taxes to fund their teachings.

[js1138]

Justify it however you so choose, but do you really think that it appeals to parents sending their children into public schools who already believe evolution is a lie.

I'm not sure exactly what this sentence means. Are you referring to my attitude?

I really don't care if I appeal to my debate opponents. There are perhaps half a dozen evolution critics that spar with me on a reasonably friendly basis. I get along with people who are honest and have a sense of humor.

I get along less well with people who post dishonest quotations or who argue from positions so discredited that AIG has rejected them.

I occasionally get into flame wars with people who argue against the findings of science based on the politics of scientists. Or people who tell me that conservatism requires a certain set of beliefs.