Entomologists unite behind evolutionary theory

| 127 Comments

Many scientific organizations have spoken out strongly in favor of evolutionary theory and often also against the scientifically vacuous concept of Intelligent Design. The latest in the ever growing list are the entomologists.

, no meaningful or significant controversy exists within the biological sciences—entomology included—about the centrality and legitimacy of evolutionary theory

Showing that scientists believe that ‘teaching the controversy’ is nothing but a sham.

and

in contrast, intelligent design—with its central tenet of irreducible complexity (i.e., aspects of living systems are too complex to ascribe to biological processes and therefore must have been designed by some intelligent force)—is neither predictive nor falsifiable and therefore does not meet the standards of science. Accordingly, intelligent design has no utility in entomology and – for the same reason – has no legitimate place in science classrooms at any level of instruction.

showing that scientists consider Intelligent Design to be scientifically vacuous

Read on for the full resolution text

Hat tip NCSE

(First passed by the Council of Entomology Department Administrators on December 14, 2005)

WHEREAS, entomology, the scientific study of insects and their relatives, aims to increase knowledge of the biology of this largest group of animals on Earth and apply that knowledge toward improving human health and well-being. Advances in entomology depend upon rigorous and widely accepted scientific methods that include the development of hypotheses based on observations that are tested and either falsified or incorporated into the body of knowledge that constitutes the discipline. Any hypothesis that cannot be rejected based on evidence is inherently unscientific. AND WHEREAS, in all other sciences, the knowledge that accumulates from the testing of various hypotheses can lead to the development of scientific theories, which offer the most comprehensive explanations of natural phenomena and predict the characteristics of as yet unobserved phenomena. Evolution is one of the most robust theories in the biological sciences and has been integral to the conduct of entomological science since it was first articulated some 150 years ago. Indeed, entomologists were among the first North American scientists to incorporate evolutionary theory into their work and have successfully used its explanatory and predictive power to elucidate aspects of the systematics, ecology, physiology, and genetics of insects and their relatives. AND WHEREAS, no meaningful or significant controversy exists within the biological sciences—entomology included—about the centrality and legitimacy of evolutionary theory. Ongoing study and refinement of evolutionary theory are reflections of the manner in which all areas of science advance. AND WHEREAS, in contrast, intelligent design—with its central tenet of irreducible complexity (i.e., aspects of living systems are too complex to ascribe to biological processes and therefore must have been designed by some intelligent force)—is neither predictive nor falsifiable and therefore does not meet the standards of science. Accordingly, intelligent design has no utility in entomology and – for the same reason – has no legitimate place in science classrooms at any level of instruction. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that for the United States to remain intellectually and economically competitive in the 21st century, its science must be conducted according to time-tested and globally acceptable standards. Evolutionary theory meets those standards and provides the foundation on which the biological sciences can most productively continue to advance. We should expect no less in the quality of science education in this country.

127 Comments

“My heart soars like an eagle” (Chief Dan George)

I am an entomologist. (Ph.D. from a reputable institution.)

Entomology without evolution is just stamp-collecting! (The same can be said about all biological sciences.)

Now let’s hear from the Mammalogists, Herpetologists, Ichthyologists, Parasitologists, Ecologists, Agronomists, Physiologists, Anthropologists, Phytologists, Mycologists, Botanists, Algologists, Bacteriologists… And the bird guys. (Spelukers optional.) And the Engineers can go to Heol.

Unfortunately, such statements of solidarity will have NO EFFECT on the ID camp. I can hear them now: “Oh, so STRIDENT! They must be feeling threatened! What are they afraid of?”

djlactin Wrote:

Now let’s hear from the Mammalogists, Herpetologists, Ichthyologists, Parasitologists, Ecologists, Agronomists, Physiologists, Anthropologists, Phytologists, Mycologists, Botanists, Algologists, Bacteriologists… And the bird guys. (Spelukers optional.) And the Engineers can go to Heol.

The word you are looking for is Ornithologists. Or birders, if you meant the amateurs. Also, learn to speol spell. The spelunkers will thank you.

tijs: re: Heol: read the “Dune” prequels… (I believe Heol is the Muslim equivalent). (and “Bird guys” = joke) (but the Speluker thng was truly my errot;)

Nice to meet you, djlactin! I’m a postdoc in a lab specializing in insect behavioral and evolutionary ecology. When I saw this thread, the first thing I thought was, “Hurray for our side!”

Strident? Why not? Some things are just worth stridulating about. :-)

It is ironical that entomologists would pass such a strong resolution supporting evolution theory, considering that the mutualism (co-dependence) of insect pollination of plants presents one of the strongest cases against evolution theory. Co-evolution of a pair of corresponding features in two co-dependent organisms is virtually impossible where the mutations required in both organisms would be detrimental when the corresponding feature in the other organism is absent. Even when a required mutation is not detrimental when the corresponding feature is absent, this mutation would offer no immediate evolutionary advantage unless the corresponding feature in the other organism is pre-existent. This situation contrasts with adaptation to the fixed physical features of the environment, e.g., water, land, air, and climate, which are always there to offer an immediate advantage to organisms that adapt to them. Also, unlike the case with irreducible complexity, the arguments against co-evolution cannot be explained away by “exaptation,” the idea that the parts of an irreducible system existed before the system was created and had different functions than they have in the system. The following articles show extreme examples of mutual specialization in the insect pollination of plants (thanks, PvM – you provided the first two of these articles) – http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/b[…]volution.htm , a general article about insect pollination, says – “The reward offered is not always food. There is a tropical orchid with flowers that look and smell like females of a certain species of wasp. Males of this species emerge a week before the females. A male who smells a flower of this orchid, think it’s a female wasp, gets closer and the flower looks like a female, lands on it and it feels like a female, tries to copulate, gives up in frustration, and goes on to the next thing that smells like a female, and ends up transferring pollen.” Here is an article about long-nosed insects and deep flowers – http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/03[…]feature.html A particularly interesting form of pollination is called “buzz pollination,” which is used by about 8 percent of the world’s species of flowering plants – http://gears.tucson.ars.ag.gov/ic/b[…]buzzpol.html The entomologists’ usual doomsday predictions that teaching criticism of evolution theory would destroy biology and the USA’s technological competitiveness are unfounded. Biologists can use evolution theory even while believing that all or part of it is untrue.

Ah, our friend Andy H has returned with his ‘arguments’

It is ironical that entomologists would pass such a strong resolution supporting evolution theory, considering that the mutualism (co-dependence) of insect pollination of plants presents one of the strongest cases against evolution theory. Co-evolution of a pair of corresponding features in two co-dependent organisms is virtually impossible where the mutations required in both organisms would be detrimental when the corresponding feature in the other organism is absent.

In other words, imagine a strawman scenario and voila evolution is impossible.

Even when a required mutation is not detrimental when the corresponding feature is absent, this mutation would offer no immediate evolutionary advantage unless the corresponding feature in the other organism is pre-existent. This situation contrasts with adaptation to the fixed physical features of the environment, e.g., water, land, air, and climate, which are always there to offer an immediate advantage to organisms that adapt to them. Also, unlike the case with irreducible complexity, the arguments against co-evolution cannot be explained away by “exaptation,” the idea that the parts of an irreducible system existed before the system was created and had different functions than they have in the system.

And that’s where Andy is wrong. Why does Andy not familiarize himself with the extensive literature on co-evolution?

Heck. Darwin even predicted the existence of a particular moth based on the existence of a particular flower. What has Intelligent Design ‘predicted’ lately? Ever?

Look Andy, your comments about co-evolution are as unfounded as your comments were about evolution of sex. Remember that you considered the latter one to be a good example against evolution? A quick survey of recent scientific articles and voila, another argument was dropped.

Biologists can use evolution theory even while believing that all or part of it is untrue.

ROTFL

It is ironical that entomologists would pass such a strong resolution supporting evolution theory, considering that the mutualism (co-dependence) of insect pollination of plants presents one of the strongest cases against evolution theory.

It is alanic that you’d misuse the word ‘ironic’ in a statement which is as completely wrong as it is possible to be.

Evolutionary change can easily lead to such mutual dependence, although it is profoundly unlikely to ever lead out of it. Plants produce pollen. Insects first act as parasites, consuming the pollen, then symbiotes, helping to spread pollen from one plant to another. Plants alter their reproductive organs in order to best attract and support the insects, then produce nectar. The more plants utilize this strategy, and the more insects act to pollinate such plants, the easier it is for other plants insects to form similar relationships. Eventually it’s easy for some plants and some insect species to form odd, parasitic relationships again.

I strongly encourage everyone here to just ignore Larry/Andy H.’s comment. It’s transparently stupid and not worthy of response. The fact that Larry keeps repeating the same errors and misconceptions even after having been corrected innumerable times indicates that he’s not interested in learning anything. Don’t participate in his thread-killing fantasies.

I am glad to see that those who study ents are finally taking a stand against magic and pseudoscience.

Strident? Why not? Some things are just worth stridulating about.

Screech the Controversy!

Andy, normally I don’t address you at all but this time you did it. I will have to flog myself later.

Are you telling entimologists facts about entimology? Can you tell me why the heck Sebastes pinniger lives as long as it does? Can you tell me what the hell it is? Sheesh.

Your education ministry would look like Mao’s “Cultural Revolution.”

God I spelt Entomology wrong. My Mom would spank me.

I strongly encourage everyone here to just ignore Larry/Andy H.’s comment.

I couldn’t even read past the first sentence. More broadly, however, I would like to go further, and strongly encourage everyone here to just ignore ALL of Farfromsane’s drivel here.

I mean, he can’t even troll. It’s embarrassing. Beneath us, even.

You quoted the entomologists:

in contrast, intelligent design—with its central tenet of irreducible complexity (i.e., aspects of living systems are too complex to ascribe to biological processes and therefore must have been designed by some intelligent force)—is neither predictive nor falsifiable and therefore does not meet the standards of science. Accordingly, intelligent design has no utility in entomology and — for the same reason — has no legitimate place in science classrooms at any level of instruction.

Do you think they would also endorse:

in contrast, the String Theory Landscape—with its central tenet of a multiverse (i.e., that our universe only appears fine-tuned only because it is one of 10^500 possible universes) is neither predictive nor falsifiable and therefore does not meet the standards of science. Accordingly, the String Theory Landscape has no legitimate place in science classrooms at any level of instruction.

Mr. Heddle, I doubt they would agree with that last statement about string theory - mostly because it’s not true.

Various flavors of string theory are, at least in ‘theory’ testable. They require energy levels greater than any current accelerator, but there are aspects which can be considered.

And nobody is teaching ‘string theory’ to high school students in lieu of an alterative, tested, provable theory.

Really, if you’re going to create strawmen, create good ones.

Rilke’s Granddaughter ,

You’ll note carefully that I said “String Theory Landscape” not generic String Theory–and it’s chief proponent (Susskind) admits it does not conform to what we normally call science–and has suggested that just because it isn’t falsifiable doesn’t mean it isn’t right. This is no straw man, but a major controversy in the High Energy Physics world.

And also, you will please note, the entomologists did not say “high school”, but at any level of instruction.

Straw man? Pot-kettle-black.

Will you guys ever quit messing with String theory? Those who have thought of and endorse it have tried to construct the very thing IDiots hate the very mention of: A mechanism, consistent in paper and potentially observable, with which one can be led to a Unified Field Theory, an actual controversy in Physics, not made-up mumbo jumbo disputes. Even so, to be accepted as a debatable alternative (even as an outsider), they had to give battles in the scientific arena and devise experiments that might provide some data that would support their theory. They did not try to force their way into high schools like the petty ID cowards. That’s why, however unconventional in their theories, they’re still scientists and not quacks. The ID equivalent would be “ooh ooh I know, you can’t unite electromagnetism and gravity because they’re Irreducibly Separate; you see, some extra-universal Designer made the universe in a test tube, and added two indredients in the mix… and the children have a right to know”!

(Oh great, now I’m giving them ideas.)

David Heddle Wrote:

You’ll note carefully that I said “String Theory Landscape” not generic String Theory—and it’s chief proponent (Susskind) admits it does not conform to what we normally call science—and has suggested that just because it isn’t falsifiable doesn’t mean it isn’t right.

More precisely, the String Theory Landscape is research in progress. Not one proponent proposes it in any other way, and as such, you will not find one proponent advocating it being taught at any level other than research seminars. The same could be said of various theories of slipping on ice.

This is no straw man, but a major controversy in the High Energy Physics world.

Actually, it’s a very minor controversy, but it only attracts attention because of the anthropomorphic principle. First, string theory has to be solved. Then, presumably, the status of the landscape will be obvious. What’s seen today are conjectures about what an eventual solution to string theory will leave us with.

Twenty years ago, people were dismissing inflationary cosmology as nothing better than metaphysical speculation, impossible even in principle to test and verify, but the intervening years have revealed this negative judgment was premature: actual tests and verifications have been made.

Unlike ID in any of its forms, both inflation and the landscape have involved serious research done by real scientists aiming for ultimate experimental vindication.

Comment #81983 Posted by Caledonian on February 24, 2006 08:59 AM

It is alanic that you’d misuse the word ‘ironic’ in a statement which is as completely wrong as it is possible to be.

My printed Webster’s New World Dictionary says that the spelling “ironical” is acceptable, though “ironic” is preferred. The online Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary does not recognize the spelling “ironical,” though many other online references do. Anyway, thanks for pointing this out – in the future I will use the preferred spelling so that people won’t “bug” me about this.

Plants produce pollen. Insects first act as parasites, consuming the pollen, then symbiotes, helping to spread pollen from one plant to another. Plants alter their reproductive organs in order to best attract and support the insects, then produce nectar. The more plants utilize this strategy, and the more insects act to pollinate such plants, the easier it is for other plants insects to form similar relationships.

When evolution is described in broad, general, vague terms, it sounds plausible. However, when you get into the nitty-gritty details, when you try to visualize evolution actually taking place, that is when big problems arise.

Comment #81981 Posted by PvM on February 24, 2006 08:56 AM

Heck. Darwin even predicted the existence of a particular moth based on the existence of a particular flower. What has Intelligent Design ‘predicted’ lately? Ever?

So what is the big deal ? Darwin figured that unless the plant was self-pollinated, which is rare, it had to be pollinated either by the wind or by an animal. Since the pollen must have looked like it was carried by animals, he figured that there must be some kind of animal that was physically suited to pollinating that flower. So what was the big prediction ? Also, Darwinism was not even necessary for making that prediction. In fact, those articles I presented did not even have to describe insect pollination in terms of co-evolution – they could have simply described the pollination strictly in terms of mutualism (co-dependence). As for what intelligent design and other criticisms of evolution theory are good for, the debate over these criticisms has improved our understanding of biology.

BTW, according to the article on long-nosed insects, it looks like Darwin’s prediction was wrong. The article said, “Critical to Darwin’s prediction was his suspicion that pollination could take place only if the depth of a plant’s flowers matched or exceeded the length of a pollinator’s tongue. Only then would the body of the pollinator be pressed firmly enough against the reproductive parts of the flower to transfer pollen effectively as the pollinator fed.”

However, in all the illustrations in the article, the depth of the flower is less than the length of the pollinator’s tongue (proboscis), contrary to Darwin’s prediction. The illustrations show the pollen attached to the proboscis – not the body – of the insect.

Heddle #82060

“However, when you get into the nitty-gritty details, when you try to visualize evolution actually taking place, that is when big problems arise.”

Only for small minds with limited imaginations.

Well, Andy H, I have to admit that Darwin’s prediction was indeed so vague and lacking in details, that it pales compared to some of ID’s predictions- like for instace the one DaveScott gave: The revolutionary prediction that “You can cultivate bacteria forever in the laboratory and never get a nucleus”.

MUAHAHAHAHAHA

OOPS, sorry Heddle, that was Andy H/Felafalman with the limited imagination.

Syntax Error: not well-formed (invalid token) at line 5, column 166, byte 471 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.3/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

Larry, your final paragraph is incorrect. I’m heading off to do some banking. You have a couple of hours to find and make the correction, otherwise I get to embarrass you yet again by pointing out your (lies/lack of scholarship).

Actually, this is a better quote from Susskind, from Nature Jan. 4, 2006:

Susskind, too, finds it “deeply, deeply troubling” that there’s no way to test the principle. But he is not yet ready to rule it out completely. “It would be very foolish to throw away the right answer on the basis that it doesn’t conform to some criteria for what is or isn’t science,” he says.

That’s the one I intended when I wrote you would roast Behe if he said it.

David, Way to completely ignore the point of my post- but that was expected I guess. Anyway, I’ll start form where you did.

I was of course refering to String Theory in general, and the tests designed to provide some comfirmation for it in the subatomic level. ST Landscape is not an autonomous theory, but a string theory prediction to explain the expansion of the universe the way it’s observed. To obtain any kind of evidence for that, you can’t simply conduct an experiment that will go “Ding! String Landscape”- and the same goes for the basic inflation model. All you can do is create consistent theoretical models that concede or derive from your theory, define any observable data those models may have when applied to the universe, and then look for matching observations.

And, guess what? That’s what they do. That brings us to the point of my previous post: String theorists try to provide paradigms and mechanisms of how their theory works and ways to verify it. They may fail eventually (I’m not as supportive of their theory as you might think), but the point is that they try.. And that’s what makes them scientists.

Unlike Behe, who in their place would say something like “The Cosmological Constant is the way it is because someone made it that way- come on, it’s obvious! No, I dunno who or how! Don’t judge me! Oh whatever, you’re obviously a hardcore atheist- lemme talk to your kids!”

Spot the difference?

Oh, and, not a germ of Idea? Thank gawd for that: I wouldn’t want to start a new ID trend. Although IDers have been known to produce “theories” and “arguments” out of virtually nothing- quantum fluctuations of the void in their mind, perhaps?

Comment #82056 Posted by William E Emba on February 24, 2006 03:09 PM

Unlike ID in any of its forms, both inflation [inflationary cosmology] and the landscape [String Theory Landscape] have involved serious research done by real scientists aiming for ultimate experimental vindication.

OK, what actually observable experiments do you propose for testing such things as Darwinism ( the notion that evolution was driven solely by random mutations and natural selection), punctuated equilibrium, and exaptation, all of which are widely accepted in the scientific community ?

Comment #82061 Posted by Marine Geologist on February 24, 2006 03:29 PM

“However, when you get into the nitty-gritty details, when you try to visualize evolution actually taking place, that is when big problems arise.”

Only for small minds with limited imaginations.

I would rather have a limited imagination than a wild one.

Comment #82034 Posted by CJ O’Brien on February 24, 2006 01:12 PM

“I strongly encourage everyone here to just ignore Larry/Andy H.’s comment.”

I couldn’t even read past the first sentence.

Thanks, guys, for advertising my comments – I appreciate it. I think that some people now are going to read my comments just out of curiosity in order to decide for themselves whether what I said is so terrible.

Anyway, even people who don’t agree with my views about evolution might be interested in the cited articles about insect pollination.

Hey larry!

what happened to the discussion we were having about the value of Wiki in your “investigations”?

You bailed out and missed the big, juicy morsel I left there for you.

oh, and why are you posting as Andy H.?

BWE,

“ Are you telling entimologists facts about entimology? Can you tell me why the heck Sebastes pinniger lives as long as it does?”

What the heck does Sebastes pinniger have to do with entomology?

Nothing. I just want to know. So I thought I’d go to Andy who seems able to answer questions better than professionals. What’s the difference between entiomology and Icthyology? I figured if he could do it for one he must be able to do it for others. Rather than go to an expert, oh, never mind. Anyway I’ve been wondering.

er.…Rilke’s Granddaughter

Lawrence “I’m not a Holocaust denier just a Revisionist” Fafarman I predict will take your 100% correct statement about him as a compliment.

k.e. Wrote:

Lawrence “I’m not a Holocaust denier just a Revisionist” Fafarman I predict will take your 100% correct statement about him as a compliment.

Of course. It wasn’t done for the benefit of Larry - he’s shown that he doesn’t even bother to read the posts - it’s for the lurkers. I’m trying to show them that interesting, ethical behavior is rewarded on the Thumb by interesting responses.

Carol "What an ignoramas!" Clouser, addressing Ben, Wrote:

Emba conveniently ignores the fact that there does indeed exist a broader context to his derogatory remark against women. It is his derogatory remark against gentiles.

That wasn’t derogatory beyond you personally either. You can find a history only by inventing one. In other words, by lying.

Note that you have a well-established history of lying, by the way. In some sense, that is your assumed default mode.

He attacked me as having “a goyisher kop”, meaning “you have a gentile brain”. That was not meant as a compliment, I assure you.

Golly. And I told BWE he had a goyisher kop the other day, since it seemed 100% appropriate: he was inviting you into his confidence by saying cross his heart.

You are also totally silent that you called me “farmboy” by way of insult, before I insulted you. In Hebrew, to make it official.

The fact that it was stated in Yiddish makes it sound even more sinister and onerous.

You are now raving. Stark deluded raving. The choice of Yiddish makes it humorous and insignificant. Sheesh.

And the status of you calling me “farmboy” in Hebrew is …? Onionladyland is a very peculiar place, methinks.

And since this is yet another bit of bigotry Emba shares with some in the fanatical ultra-orthodox Jewish community, it makes the anti-women comment fit neatly into an emerging pattern.

When the facts aren’t there, you just lie, lie, lie. It’s your major talent. The “pattern” that you have found is simply “circular reasoning”. Something you learned from Landa, I assume.

If you showed even a grain of reasoning ability, you would have noticed that I very obviously do not fit in the “fanatical ultra-orthodox Jewish community”. For one thing, I read and post on the Internet. Even the middle-of-the-road right wing American Orthodox community considers the Internet treyf, and numerous rabbaim permit nothing more than work-related access. And second, the “fanatical ultra-orthodox Jewish community” has serious problems with evolution. So, QED, I am obviously not a member, but little things like facts and proof don’t matter to Carol “What an ignoramas!” Clouser.

Now, for the record, I could not care less what Emba thinks about me or about anything else. That he was totally wrong on the points we argued about is as sure as night follows day.

You are simply lying. As it is, being refuted, you simply ran to bizarre accusations, requiring just as incompetent reading of English as I demonstrated you have in Hebrew.

Regarding the most recent lies you have made, regarding women learning Torah being a modern day, ultra-orthodox invention, let me simply summarize: In the Mishnah (Sotah 20a, Kesuvim 62b), R. Eliezer says one who teaches his daughter Torah is like one who has taught her promiscuity. The Shulkhan Arukh (Yoreh De’ah 246:6) quotes this and says this is regarding the Oral Torah but one should not teach women Written Torah either. The Rema says women need to learn the basic laws that they must fulfill. The Taz says that women are also allowed to learn the simple meaning of the Written Torah.

The Mishnah is more or less the background of the Oral Torah, and this goes back about 2000 years. Promiscuity is considered the lowest of low in terms of womanly behavior, so it’s a very strong condemnation. The Shulkhan Arukh, from the 1500s, is the fundamental summary of Jewish law, and most of Orthodoxy claims to follow the Shulkhan Arukh, with the modern right-wing taking a more literalist approach. The Rema’s contemporary commentaries on the Shulkhan Arukh are, from the Ashkenazi point of view, an actual part of the Shulkhan Arukh. The Taz’s commentaries, from the next century, are highly regarded.

In other words, Carol, you are just lying. The restrictions on women regarding Torah are all from very authoritative sources.

But I will expose him for what he is.

No, you will just lie and defame, since your own arguments were shown to be utter trash by me. And you’re a soreheaded pinbrain loser over it.

And I am quite chagrined that but for Paul and you, no one else seems to care.

Paul based his assertion on the inaccurate assertion that I was not referring to you. Ben based his assertion on the inaccurate assertion that there was a traditional ban on “Carol learning Torah”. Neither have responded to my corrections, Paul with total silence, and Ben by jumping forward with “have-you-stopped-beating-your-wife” type leading questioning while pretending the correction of his error didn’t happen.

Meanwhile, people have noticed repeatedly that you simply make up your claims, lie left and right, and don’t actually respond to any substantive replies.

Rilke's Granddaughter Wrote:
Larry Wrote:

And whereas I have been making just on-topic posts about co-evolution (co-evolution is a very important subject in entomology), you have been involved with Carol Clouser and William Emba in a long, grossly off-topic argument about Torah interpretation, sexism, racism, etc..

But the point is that no one does care what you think. …

And from my point of view, I’ve been waiting for David Heddle to respond to my on-topic (well, at least scientific/philosophic) posting regarding the status of the string theory landscape. In particular, why he finds that is some “unscientific” leap into as of yet unimaginably untestable unknown, but I find it to fit in with Einstein’s leaps into the then unimaginably untestable unknowns of stimulated emission, Bose-Einstein condensations, and gravitational radiation. I should point out that eventually all of these have been confirmed, although the latter only indirectly, and that 8 Nobel prizes have been awarded for these confirmations, and that the Nobel prize winning work relied on at least 4 Nobel prize winning developments above and beyond quantum mechanics and the like.

I’ve come to the conclusion that Heddle is uncomfortable with people here he can’t bluff “string theory” at, and that at some level he is aware that sitting around and going “golly, I can’t explain XYZ” is not actually up to Einstein’s way of thinking, although it accurately describes his, Behe’s and Dembski’s.

Instead, Carol “What an ignoramas!” Clouser pipes in with her sore loser accusations and revisionist version of posting history, telling Heddle to avoid this discussion. I note that she too avoided the chance to contribute something of scientific value. I mean, somebody might learn something intelligent, right?

Comment #83542 Posted by Rilke’s Granddaughter on March 3, 2006 01:37 PM

When someone asks for an opinion on a topic, generally they’re looking for someone who can contribute some actual insight - someone who has studied the field, not such some regurgitation of a web-site. We can all get to web-sites.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with citing a website when appropriate. I mentioned the website where I saw the statement that was in the question. And far from “regurgitating” what the website said, I actually contradicted the website’s statement.

I’ve spent almost a thousand hours this year alone doing lab-work and research.

Whoopee.

You’ve not studied these fields; you’ve not done research; you’ve not shown that you have any insights of interest.

You mostly do not address the issues but mostly just accuse me of ignorance or using “strawman” arguments. And I easily refuted your arguments in the few instances where you did address the issues.

Larry: Shut up.

Carol: Thanks for (yet again) sharing your religious opinions with us. Why, again, should anyone give a flying fig about them?

Syntax Error: not well-formed (invalid token) at line 20, column 6, byte 2573 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.3/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by PvM published on February 24, 2006 12:59 AM.

Sex pays off was the previous entry in this blog.

Science: Ohio School Board Boots Out ID 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