Nick Matzke posted Entry 2512 on August 10, 2006 06:06 PM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/2507

Miller et al. 2006, Public Acceptance of Evolution, Science Magazine

Science magazine has just published the results of international polls assessing public acceptance of evolution around the world: Jon D. Miller, Eugenie C. Scott, and Shinji Okamoto (2006) “.” Science Aug 11 2006: 765-766 (Supporting Online Material)

The results are at left. Only one country beats the U.S. in the race to the bottom: Turkey, probably the only country in the list with more severe fundamentalism vs. modernism issues than the U.S. But the people in the U.K. can take heart – a BBC poll this spring (which was widely cited by creationists to support the idea that U.S. antievolutionism is not weird), said that less than half of Britons went for evolution. That result is strongly contradicted by this survey, where the U.K. ranks near the top in accepting evolution (as well they should, Darwin is on the money there).

One nice thing about this paper is that it points out the dramatically different results one gets in polls, depending on the exact questions asked (Note: I still have issues with some of the questions; the various national polls were done by a variety of groups and agencies over a number of years, so the authors of this paper did not pick all of those questions. The mouse question below is scientifically confusing IMHO, and any question that mixes God and evolution together is going to get ambiguous results from the half of the country that is pro-God and pro-evolution. Grumble.).

From the supplemental material: Table S2. Acceptance of selected scientific constructs, United States, 2005. N = 1484.

True Not sure False
Over periods of millions of years, some species of plants and animals adjust and survive while other species die and become extinct. (T) 78% 16% 6%
More than half of human genes are identical to those of mice. (T) 32 47 21
Human beings have somewhat less than half of the DNA in common with chimpanzees. (F) 15 48 38
The earliest humans lived at the same time as the dinosaurs. (F) 28 22 51
Human beings were created by God as whole persons and did not evolve from earlier forms of life. (F) 62 2 36
Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals. (T) 40 21 39

From these results, it appears that support for young-earth creationism is much weaker than the standard Gallup poll question (Humans were created in the last 10,000 years) leads people to believe. On the other hand, it is also clear that the big issue in the U.S. is not evolution in general, but common ancestry of humans and apes in particular.

It appears that the blogs are already doing meta-analysis on the results. One early report says that country evolution acceptance correlates with country happiness, but the statistical significance and causal connection of this result remains unreported.

PS: Press release and LiveScience story where multiple people are quoted and Bruce Chapman shills the lame old DI Pathetically Mild Dissent from Darwin List. When asked to comment on the DI list, I basically noted that it was long on people with irrelevant scientific research and expertise and incredibly short on people with relevant research and expertise. I should note that I did mention to reporter Ker Than that Stanely Salthe is the one guy on the DI list that might be an exception to my generalization, because he did do real work on evolution, before he got involved in semiotics and the other weird stuff he describes on his website here. I also mentioned Project Steve, which, sadly, did not make the story, even though the Steve list is still longer (S=750 according to the Steve-o-meter) than the DI list despite a systematic international campaign by the DI to gather names (NCSE recently received a fax of a letter they are evidently sending out to a large list of scientists, a list the DI presumably purchased).

Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.

Comment #118644

Posted by FishyFred on August 10, 2006 7:11 PM (e)

There’s also this: WorldNetDaily poll on the age of the universe. That says a lot more about the readership of WND than it does about the state of science education in this country.

At least… I HOPE that’s all it says.

Comment #118645

Posted by Sir_Toejam on August 10, 2006 7:17 PM (e)

no wonder our friends across the pond so often ask what all hoopla is about. I’m envious; they made it to the top 10.

Comment #118646

Posted by Coin on August 10, 2006 7:19 PM (e)

Why Iceland?

Comment #118651

Posted by King Aardvark on August 10, 2006 7:55 PM (e)

Where’s Canada?

Comment #118654

Posted by Gene Goldring on August 10, 2006 8:10 PM (e)

I was wondering the same thing.
Canada is honorably mentioned in the Supporting Online Material pg.6 under “Attitude toward science and technology.”

You would think we would secure a position on the graph. :-(

Comment #118657

Posted by mplavcan on August 10, 2006 8:28 PM (e)

Well this just goes to show the affect of godless evolution ideology. Just look at that list of economically troubled countries filled with unhappy people engaged in all sorts of wickedness and crime. Why, my understanding is that morality was finally purged from the UK in late 1993. Compared to the US, their society is rife with murder, mayhem and chaos. At least, that’s the message I get from Ken Hamm.

Comment #118659

Posted by JonBuck on August 10, 2006 8:29 PM (e)

From my reading, it seems that the majority of people don’t have a problem with the concept of evolution (78%). But when the question involves humans, a lot of us in the US have trouble accepting it.

Comment #118660

Posted by Kim on August 10, 2006 8:33 PM (e)

I think they got the wrong segment of the Netherlands, only 12th… Shame on my country….

Comment #118662

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on August 10, 2006 8:41 PM (e)

Alas, though, it’s not just attitudes towards evolution. When it comes to virtually any topic, whether science, math, hisotry, geography, whatever, the US as a whole ranks very near the bottom.

We are, in effect, a nation of heavily-armed uneducated morons.

Comment #118664

Posted by normdoering on August 10, 2006 9:03 PM (e)

King Aardvark asked:

Where’s Canada?

And I’d like to know how Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Middle East fair. Turkey will probably look good next to Iran.

Reason I’d like to know is if you can link anti-science to terrorism.

Comment #118666

Posted by Steviepinhead on August 10, 2006 9:09 PM (e)

Iceland (gosh, only one slip of the finger away from Idland, and yet there at the top the anti-ID scale): one could just argue that they are a homogenous population, ethnically, culturally, and religiously, so that whatever attitude they hold about topics like this is likely to be widespread. The converse of some of the above is that there is a lack of the cultural and religious fault lines that fracture our more-diverse populace (and, of course, that same lack of diversity could potentially foster much more troublesome attitudes to science, and other things, as it has done elsewhere in the world).

Likewise, one might note that Icelanders are highly literate, strongly motivated to wean themselves away from a purely extraction-based economy, and that–like most northern European countries with high nominal affiliation to one of the Protestant versions of Christianity–they have also become highly secular (though, again, in other circumstances that same strong one=main-religion trend could cut against secularism).

But here’s my highly-speculative pet theory: a long-running genealogical research study has been taking advantage of that very high degree of Icelandic ethnic/genetic homogeneity (and of well-documented church, family, and government records of marriages, births, and deaths), which makes it “easy” to cleanly isolate genetic diseases (and trace them back to the ancestor with the founding mutation, chromoosome mismatch, or what have you).

Virtually every Icelander is familiar with this study and the underlying (that is to say, common descent with variation) rationales for why it works and why it’s important.

Anyway, that’s my hypothesis and it’s sticking to me.

Comment #118683

Posted by Gerry L on August 10, 2006 9:34 PM (e)

I’d like to see a version of that bar chart sorted on the red/false data. It looks like it would stack up a little differently, although the US position probably wouldn’t change. I figure it is the blue and … is that yellow? … people we need to be talking to about how evolution is taught in public school science classes. The blues need to get active. The yellows need to be brought on board and their education in this area updated.

Comment #118688

Posted by Michael Hopkins on August 10, 2006 9:58 PM (e)

More than half of human genes are identical to those of mice. (T)

I don’t think we can really support this as being true unless someone has a very strange idea of what “identical” means. I think “identical” means having the exact same nucleotide sequence. Using that standard, the statement is most definitely false.

Now the vast majority of humans genes have equivalent genes in the mouse genome would be true.

Thus I think that this question is very badly worded.

Comment #118690

Posted by Atom Smith on August 10, 2006 10:39 PM (e)

I have one question for you…

Where is Canada?

Comment #118695

Posted by Nick ((Matzke)) on August 10, 2006 10:55 PM (e)

I don’t think we can really support this as being true unless someone has a very strange idea of what “identical” means. I think “identical” means having the exact same nucleotide sequence. Using that standard, the statement is most definitely false.

Now the vast majority of humans genes have equivalent genes in the mouse genome would be true.

Thus I think that this question is very badly worded.

Clearly. In truth, I suspect 0% of our genes are literally identical to mouse genes. What they are trying to say is that over 50% of mouse genes correspond to homologous human genes (or even one-to-one, same function correspondance). I think this question came from a genetic literacy survey which was devised for broader purposes, and then was correlated with the evolution results in this study.

But it makes you worry if the genetic literacy survey has problematic questions like this. You could ask 1000 PhD. geneticists and most of them would probably give the “wrong” answer to that question.

Comment #118697

Posted by Nick ((Matzke)) on August 10, 2006 11:15 PM (e)

Thus I think that this question is very badly worded.

Clearly. In truth, I suspect 0% of our genes are literally identical to mouse genes. What they are trying to say is that over 50% of mouse genes correspond to homologous human genes (or even one-to-one, same function correspondance). I think this question came from a genetic literacy survey which was devised for broader purposes, and then was correlated with the evolution results in this study.

But it makes you worry if the genetic literacy survey has problematic questions like this. You could ask 1000 PhD. geneticists and most of them would probably give the “wrong” answer to that question.

Comment #118698

Posted by Sam on August 10, 2006 11:18 PM (e)

Geography isn’t my strong point, nor is geopolitics, but it appears the graph shows only EU and EU candidate countries + the US and Japan.

Comment #118700

Posted by Sam Garret on August 10, 2006 11:24 PM (e)

Geography isn’t my strong point, nor is geopolitics, but it appears the graph shows only EU and EU candidate countries + the US and Japan.

Comment #118701

Posted by Sam Garret on August 10, 2006 11:25 PM (e)

Sorry for double - got a failure to reach IP address message the first time.

Comment #118715

Posted by djlactin on August 11, 2006 12:38 AM (e)

Sam’s got it right: this poll is heavily biased toward industrialized nations. 34 countries out of (last i remember) 196. It omits countries that together constitute the vast majority of the world’s population: Asia (except Japan), Africa, South and Central America and even (!!) Australia.

Where would the US reside on the complete list?

I also wonder about bias in sampling individuals: how were they chosen? Some were phone polls; some were individual interviews. Depending on where and how the pollers found their subjects, the results might differ significantly (remember “Dewey defeats Truman!” ?)

Also, if you examine the supporting online material (SOM), there is a puzzling discrepancy: in the US, the authors claim to have interviewed at least 7500 adults over 10 separate years (the number may be as much as 20,000, but the methods statement is ambiguous), yet the n given on the chart is 1484. A similar shortfall occurs for other countries: eyeballing n in the chart, I get about 25000, yet the SOM suggests that ca. 44000 were interviewed. Contrast this with the observation that in Japan, n in the chart is exactly equal to the number given in the SOM!

There’s something more going on here than mere opinion. Most people who were ‘interviewed’ refused to participate (except POSSIBLY Japan, but perhaps the tally of ‘interviews there only included those who responded).

Before I make my concluding statement, let me point out that I am not a US citizen, and that I accept evolution absolutely.

In the face of my observations, this survey should be ‘subjected to critical analysis.’

Comment #118719

Posted by Jason Spaceman on August 11, 2006 1:39 AM (e)

I think our very own PZ Myers was quoted in a Fox Snooze article?

Paul Meyers, a biologist at the University of Minnesota who was not involved in the study, says that what politicians should be doing is saying, “We ought to defer these questions to qualified authorities and we should have committees of scientists and engineers whom we will approach for the right answers.”

(I assume “Paul Meyers” is PZ. His last name always seems to get misspelled).

Comment #118730

Posted by Anonymous_Coward on August 11, 2006 3:25 AM (e)

Sam’s got it right: this poll is heavily biased toward industrialized nations. 34 countries out of (last i remember) 196. It omits countries that together constitute the vast majority of the world’s population: Asia (except Japan), Africa, South and Central America and even (!!) Australia.

Where would the US reside on the complete list?

Despite my living in Australia, I would seriously want to know what the results would have been for Vatican City. They’d probably be able to survey all the permanent residents there.

Comment #118751

Posted by fnxtr on August 11, 2006 6:53 AM (e)

I have one question for you…

Where is Canada?

Reporter: “How did you find America?”
Lennon: “Turn left at Greenland”

It’s because we’re a resource-based third-world economy and don’t rank as a truly industrialized country.

Comment #118762

Posted by Mephisto on August 11, 2006 7:14 AM (e)

I can’t understand why it’s easier for people to accept what appears to be an abstract concept like evolution over a great period of time, but not the relations of humans to the other apes.

Have they even seen a chimpanzee? You can’t spend more than five minutes watching how they interact with each other, their gestures and the way they look to realise that there’s something fundamentally very similar about us. I think the solution is to take all schoolchildren to zoos where chimpanzees are, watch them for a while, and explain that we’re related. If anyone has any trouble after that, I think it’s probably a level of indoctrination that no teacher can change.

Comment #118768

Posted by Mephisto on August 11, 2006 7:20 AM (e)

As for that poll about evolution in Britain, I think the results can be quite misleading. People over here really aren’t familiar with the term ‘intelligent design,’ so they probably thought they were answering the question to mean ‘theistic evolution’ - still accepting evolution, but thinking that a god somehow put its mechanisms in place.

I can’t account for the 22% of people who chose ‘creationism,’ but I really wouldn’t be surprised if many didn’t know that it usually implies a young earth with no instance of evolution. I live in a part of the country where science education standards are comparatively low, and I can count on one hand the amount of people I’ve met who in any way subscribe to a form of creationism.

Comment #118783

Posted by Mephisto on August 11, 2006 7:51 AM (e)

As for that poll about evolution in Britain, I think the results can be quite misleading. People over here really aren’t familiar with the term ‘intelligent design,’ so they probably thought they were answering the question to mean ‘theistic evolution’ - still accepting evolution, but thinking that a god somehow put its mechanisms in place.

I can’t account for the 22% of people who chose ‘creationism,’ but I really wouldn’t be surprised if many didn’t know that it usually implies a young earth with no instance of evolution. I live in a part of the country where science education standards are comparatively low, and I can count on one hand the amount of people I’ve met who in any way subscribe to a form of creationism.

Comment #118784

Posted by Michael Suttkus, II on August 11, 2006 8:00 AM (e)

Mephisto wrote:

I can’t understand why it’s easier for people to accept what appears to be an abstract concept like evolution over a great period of time, but not the relations of humans to the other apes.

Have they even seen a chimpanzee? You can’t spend more than five minutes watching how they interact with each other, their gestures and the way they look to realise that there’s something fundamentally very similar about us.

And yet I’ve been told by straight-faced creationists that the evolutionary distance between humans and chimps is insurmountable, while all fish (sharks, rays, guppies, batfish, grouper, flounder, eels, etc.) could have evolved from salmon. The kind of mind that can accept neon tetra and whale sharks as being evolved in a few hundred years (post flood, tops) while denying humans and chimps could evolve from a common ancestor in millions utterly baffles me. What? Our brains are BIGGER! Our skin is LESS HAIRY! EVILutions can’t make things bigger or less hairy!

Comment #118786

Posted by Matt on August 11, 2006 8:09 AM (e)

I’d like to see the correlation between the responses to these questions and the question recently asked in a Washington Post poll: “in what year did the 9/11 attacks occur?”

Can there be any doubt that the 30% of Americans who didn’t know the answer would be in the “don’t accept evolution/don’t know” categories?

Comment #118796

Posted by Mephisto on August 11, 2006 8:50 AM (e)

As for that poll about evolution in Britain, I think the results can be quite misleading. People over here really aren’t familiar with the term ‘intelligent design,’ so they probably thought they were answering the question to mean ‘theistic evolution’ - still accepting evolution, but thinking that a god somehow put its mechanisms in place.

I can’t account for the 22% of people who chose ‘creationism,’ but I really wouldn’t be surprised if many didn’t know that it usually implies a young earth with no instance of evolution. I live in a part of the country where science education standards are comparatively low, and I can count on one hand the amount of people I’ve met who in any way subscribe to a form of creationism.

Comment #118801

Posted by Michael Suttkus, II on August 11, 2006 9:35 AM (e)

The article refers to a paper called “.” How post-modern! Are you trying to say the article has a point? :-)

Comment #118804

Posted by Torbjörn Larsson on August 11, 2006 9:37 AM (e)

“Where’s Canada?”

According to the press release the main amount of material were collected by the European Commission, and Japan and US were complementary work.

“Why Iceland?”

My pet ad hocs why Iceland and Japan almost always do well is due to their island geography. Iceland is very sparsely populated with a harsh climate, so people have had to eke a living and support each other. Japan is very densely populated, so people have had to eke a living and get along with each other. Either case promotes technical and social proficiency.

But Stevepinheads hypotheses trumps mine in this case. It was a very sticky one.

Comment #118805

Posted by Mephisto on August 11, 2006 9:39 AM (e)

As for that poll about evolution in Britain, I think the results can be quite misleading. People over here really aren’t familiar with the term ‘intelligent design,’ so they probably thought they were answering the question to mean ‘theistic evolution’ - still accepting evolution, but thinking that a god somehow put its mechanisms in place.

I can’t account for the 22% of people who chose ‘creationism,’ but I really wouldn’t be surprised if many didn’t know that it usually implies a young earth with no instance of evolution. I live in a part of the country where science education standards are comparatively low, and I can count on one hand the amount of people I’ve met who in any way subscribe to a form of creationism.

Comment #118807

Posted by Mephisto on August 11, 2006 9:42 AM (e)

Crap. Sorry about the multiple postings… I kept getting ‘timed out’ message, but apparently they were going through.

Comment #118808

Posted by steve s on August 11, 2006 9:49 AM (e)

Connecting to PT/AtBC can be pretty annoying these days.

Comment #118810

Posted by Popper's ghost on August 11, 2006 9:56 AM (e)

Yes, it sucks. Is there someone, anyone, actually running this site, and aware of what the problem is and when it might be fixed?

Comment #118813

Posted by steve s on August 11, 2006 10:06 AM (e)

You might want to take a more considerate tone.

Comment #118821

Posted by Anonymous_Coward on August 11, 2006 10:38 AM (e)

As for that poll about evolution in Britain, I think the results can be quite misleading. People over here really aren’t familiar with the term ‘intelligent design,’ so they probably thought they were answering the question to mean ‘theistic evolution’ - still accepting evolution, but thinking that a god somehow put its mechanisms in place.

I can’t account for the 22% of people who chose ‘creationism,’ but I really wouldn’t be surprised if many didn’t know that it usually implies a young earth with no instance of evolution. I live in a part of the country where science education standards are comparatively low, and I can count on one hand the amount of people I’ve met who in any way subscribe to a form of creationism.

Comment #118835

Posted by CJColucci on August 11, 2006 11:26 AM (e)

I have one question for you…

Where is Canada?

Canada is directly north of the continental United States.

Comment #118843

Posted by Glen Davidson on August 11, 2006 11:44 AM (e)

I hope this isn’t too OT, but I thought that the linked article below from Luskin was interesting, if transparently bad. So here is the link and the comments I wrote in response at AtBC (slightly edited):

Luskin’s blithering again, here (from link on UD):

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006…._1.html

What a maroon! Multiverses inhabit the limbo region of science, not thrown out because they are plausible and can’t be tested to see if they’re specifically correct, while not taught as factual science because, again, they can’t be tested. And the multiverse concept is hardly the only cosmological idea that sits there in limbo, string theory actually being more famous in that respect.

Then too, both multiverses and string theory are considered as live concepts because they don’t rely upon entities the like of which have never been reliably observed in order for them to work as models. Surely even someone as intellectually challenged as Luskin must at least be capable of understanding that multiverses would not be considered a reasonable concept if they depended upon Baal, Yahweh, or some unseen realm of the gods for the idea to be consistent. Nor would string theory be a live option if it depended upon the Greek pantheon, or the philosopher’s God.

The fact is that ID is not only itself unevidenced and untestable (as it is bandied about today, that is. Testable ID was tested and it failed), it relies upon entities behind it which are unknown, untestable, and unobserved (aliens in real design hypotheses are presumably observable if we see obviously rational design solutions, so long as their capacities and aims are reasonably similar to our own–ID does not look for design that is similar to our own, however). String theory and multiverses do not depend upon unknowns beyond themselves to appear plausible, rather they are ways of working out knowns, although so far the unknowns preclude both from being full-blown science.

Seen any multiversers or string theorists trying to force their ideas into the curricula of high schools (otoh, they nothing should preclude them from being mentioned in science class, so long as the fact that they are not confirmed is noted well)? No? Why not? Perhaps it is because they, quite unlike IDists, understand what is science and what is not.

Of course Luskin “strongly suspects” that ID is testable, which sort of begs to question why he brought it up in the first place, were he telling the truth (he may well be telling the truth, of course, which wouldn’t compliment his analytical abilities). Evolution is testable, no matter that someone like O’Leary doesn’t know it, and ID would need to be really testable (and not in the opinion of some scientifically ignorant thing like Luskin) to compete with it.

Perhaps Luskin is actually too uncomprehending to understand the difference between models which move partly beyond the limits of testability, but which do not deny established science, and those models which flatly contradict highly successful working models like evolution. How did he ever pass the bar exam (assuming he did) if he’s as incompetent as that?

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Comment #118846

Posted by chunkdz on August 11, 2006 11:53 AM (e)

A more relevant question would be “Do you believe that Darwin’s theory of evolution is a sufficient explanation for the complexity of life?”

Comment #118847

Posted by Mike Rogers on August 11, 2006 11:54 AM (e)

Shocking!!! But did you know that 50% of the population has an IQ below 100!? Just think about that - half of all Americans are below average. (Or at least the median, if the distribution is asymmetrical.) We really need to fix our educational system :)

(I’m just being silly - I’m horrified by this story, too. It’s almost too depressing to comtemplate.)

Comment #118853

Posted by Pierce R. Butler on August 11, 2006 12:33 PM (e)

According to Table S2 above, at least 2% of Americans believe that

Human beings were created by God as whole persons and did not evolve from earlier forms of life.

and that

Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals.

Regrettably, this survey does not seem to have included participation in the active US psychopharmaceuticals market among its coefficients.

Comment #118854

Posted by John Wendt on August 11, 2006 12:42 PM (e)

Turkey, probably the only country in the list with more severe fundamentalism vs. modernism issues than the U.S.

Someone noted the bias toward European countries. Tom Friedman would say that Saudi Arabia has a more severe problem.

And where are India and Pakistan? China? Russia? Any country in Africa or South America?

Comment #118855

Posted by Coin on August 11, 2006 1:01 PM (e)

djlactin wrote:

this poll is heavily biased toward industrialized nations

…yes, it was a poll of western-model democracy, industrial nations. That’s not “bias”. That’s the point of the poll. Notice their conclusions say things like:

These descriptive statistics provide evidence of the
isolation of the United States from the mainstream of western industrial societies.

You do not need to poll China to reach a conclusion like this.

Comment #118857

Posted by Peter Henderson on August 11, 2006 1:17 PM (e)

I assume that Ireland means the Republic of Ireland and not the geographical unit of Ireland ? I have absolutely no doubts that if Northern Ireland was taken alone in this survey we would actually be placed below Turkey in the acceptance of evolution league. Since we are probably included in the UK on this one, at least we have come in at the top end of the table !

Comment #118859

Posted by Glen Davidson on August 11, 2006 1:24 PM (e)

In truth, I’m not sure what the point of the polling was. Was it to show the US population’s beliefs in an unfavorable light? For, it seems that the countries picked for comparison (other than Turkey) were already known to have populations more favorable to evolution than the US’s is. Turkey perhaps was thrown in because it has something of a rationalistic tradition, and is typically quite a lot more modern than most other arab countries, while it has been a hotbed of pro-creationist activity.

I should, perhaps, note that Turkey is the only one of the 43 or so that actually teaches creationism:

http://www2.unescobkk.org/eubios/EJ86/ej86i.htm

Whether that teaching has significantly shifted opinion, I don’t know.

It may be that many other countries were not included due to restrictions and difficulties in conducting meaningful polls in them, however, rather than because of a lack of interest in them or some such thing.

What does seem clear is that science makes little gain against nonsense in this country, despite the fact that creationism is generally not taught in the public schools. Indeed, the main benefit of the polling should be that it tells us (not that we doubted it) that we are making little or no gains. No clear losses are occurring either, though that doesn’t keep Bruce Chapman from saying so and leaping to a demonstrably false conclusion:

In particular, the growing doubts about Darwinism undoubtedly reflect growing doubts among scientists about Darwinian theory.

Quite a spin, that. “Growing doubts about Darwinism” when the questions were not directly about “Darwinism” at all, rather were covering fairly ambiguously defined evolution and creationism. The “growing” aspect is questionable even within the populace. And only one inadequate weasel word, “undoubtedly”, modifies his false statement that there are “growing doubts among scientists about Darwinian theory”. Or does he mean that in fact the relevant scientists (biologists) have moved beyond “Darwinian theory”, while he hopes the rubes will take that as doubts about evolution and its known mechanisms?

Perhaps “growing doubts among scientists” is also carefully crafted to obscure the problem that the small number of IDiot scientists is almost entirely composed of non-biologists, with Wells being the prime exception that decidedly militates in favor of the rule.

Well anyway, it’s just another in the long line of dishonest DI statements. I almost hate pointing out yet again that they lie, but I believe that we must not weary of smashing the lies in their mouths.

Glen D
http;//tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Comment #118864

Posted by Torbjörn Larsson on August 11, 2006 1:50 PM (e)

“Turkey perhaps was thrown in”

I believe it wasn’t excluded. The press release says: “The data for the 32 European countries were collected by the European Commission using primarily personal interviews.” Turkey is screened for EU membership.

Comment #118866

Posted by Pablos on August 11, 2006 2:07 PM (e)

“Why Iceland?”

It’s all the fatty fish they eat. It’s rich in omega-3 fatty acids, and studies show that high maternal omega-3 consumption is positively correlated with higher cognitive scores in the children.

This would also explain why Japan’s high score.

Comment #118868

Posted by Coin on August 11, 2006 2:11 PM (e)

In truth, I’m not sure what the point of the polling was. Was it to show the US population’s beliefs in an unfavorable light?

Let us say that they had not just gathered poll data from western democracies, but had gone to the bother and expense of sending people to every country in the world.

So once the poll is over, America can say that it scored better than Ethiopia. Exactly how “favorable” is this? Is it particularly impressive?

We can probably make a pretty good guess that non-industrial, or widely poverty-stricken or war-torn nations would score worse than the U.S. on a scientific literacy test without polling them. So if we did the expanded test, we’d probably just get to see a list of all the western industrial nations, then America, then a bunch of formally Islamic states, then the third world. Would this really be any less “unfavorable” than the current poll, which shows the western industrial nations, then America, then Turkey?

An alternate suggestion: Perhaps the point of the polling was to gauge the level of acceptance of the theory of Evolution among western democracies.

Turkey perhaps was thrown in because it has something of a rationalistic tradition, and is typically quite a lot more modern than most other arab countries, while it has been a hotbed of pro-creationist activity.

I can only assume that Turkey, like Croatia, was put in because it is a candidate country to join the EU, has been trying to get into the EU for years, probably will be in the EU before all that long, and the poll included all the other European nations. Turkey is an odd case, but it makes more sense to sort them with Europe and note they’re an odd case than to sort them with the “arab countries”.

Now, what is a tad odd is that they included Turkey but not Israel, which is in a very similar position to Turkey.

Australia also would have also been interesting, and it is too bad they left that one out. (Canada, though a bizarre omission, isn’t that big a deal because they refer to readily availble alternate polls which specifically looked at Canada.) Is it that big a deal though?

Comment #118870

Posted by Steve Watson on August 11, 2006 2:22 PM (e)

Where is Canada?
Due south of Detroit ;-).

A more relevant question would be “Do you believe that Darwin’s theory of evolution is a sufficient explanation for the complexity of life?”
…a question to which I (and more relevantly, most of the world’s working biologists) would have to answer “No”. We’ve learned a lot since ol’ Chuck’s day – genetics, drift, detailed models of pop-bio, evo-devo, odd second-order effects, what-have-you. Darwin (and Wallace) may have started the ball rolling, but it’s not really “his theory” any more.

It is a common Creationist rhetorical tactic to identify “evolution” with “Darwinism” (and sometimes “natural selection”). The DI’s infamous list exploits this ambiguity.

Comment #118871

Posted by Coin on August 11, 2006 2:24 PM (e)

Tombjorn Larsson wrote:

The press release says: “The data for the 32 European countries were collected by the European Commission using primarily personal interviews.”

Oh. Well that would explain it too.

Comment #118872

Posted by afdave on August 11, 2006 2:26 PM (e)

This must be like GOLF SCORES.

America is near the bottom of the chart which explains why we are one of the world’s leading countries.

Comment #118873

Posted by Michael Suttkus, II on August 11, 2006 2:30 PM (e)

Pierce R. Butler wrote:

According to Table S2 above, at least 2% of Americans believe that

Human beings were created by God as whole persons and did not evolve from earlier forms of life.

and that

Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals.

Regrettably, this survey does not seem to have included participation in the active US psychopharmaceuticals market among its coefficients.

You misunderstand. It shows that at least 2% of those surveyed recognize that got created human beings, as whole persons, from earlier species of animal, that were not forms of life. Just as Eve was formed from Adam’s rib, Adam was formed from a fossil. Fossil means something dug up, and the One True Source for historical information says God formed man from the dust of the ground, thus showing that modern science again confirms the Bible is true and inerrant.

Or something like that.

Or not.

Comment #118874

Posted by Glen Davidson on August 11, 2006 2:32 PM (e)

I can’t say that I see much value in that poll at all.

But I do have to correct myself, since I see now that I wrote of Turkey and the “other arab countries”, when I meant to write “other muslim countries”. Turkey is not an arab country.

If people wonder why the difference between ourselves and other “first world countries” or whatever they were trying to include, the biggest difference is probably that virtually all of the others predominately have religions that accommodate evolutionary theory. Chicken and egg, I know, but there are historical reasons for this, like the assertion of “fundamentals” early in the last century (IIRC) by many Xian groups, and the fact that much religion is sort of home-grown here, without much of an intellectual tradition among many of them. Literalism appeals to such rootless religions.

In a sense, a rootless “independence” is part of the cause (contrary to what some bloggers are saying), though of course fealty to little tyrannical religions ends that independence for many. And “independence” without an adequate intellectual basis produces mindless reaction in many Americans, who mistake sheer rebellion against scientists or other demonized leaders for a meaningful independence (the founders didn’t seek to produce freedom to effect a mindless independence).

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Comment #118879

Posted by Glen Davidson on August 11, 2006 2:45 PM (e)

This must be like GOLF SCORES.

America is near the bottom of the chart which explains why we are one of the world’s leading countries.

Well then you must be in favor of scientists continuing to use evolutionary biology, despite the IDiots carping below them, since it is exactly such science (along with the rest) that has made us a leading country.

Oh, that’s right, you’re AfDave, who can never quite manage to think anything through in an intelligent manner. So I’m sure that you’re not going to recognize that no country whose scientists accepted creationism/ID has ever been able to lead in biology.

But then you still haven’t explained how the Colorado moved uphill into the Kaibab Plateau in order to carve the Grand Canyon, how the Chicxulub crater manages to date to the same time as the iridium layer, why relative dating and absolute dating are in agreement, or why it is that DNA dates correspond rather closely (where preservation is reasonably expected) to fossil dates in documenting divergences.

Remember, I asked for answers to all of those (plus quite a few more, like how the earth has cooled down hundreds of degrees in 6000 years), and the closest you came to an answer was a cut and paste that misrepresented the Kaibab uplift as a dam rather than the dome that it actually is.

Oh well, you rank at the lowest on the scale of intellectual competence.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Comment #118881

Posted by Charlie on August 11, 2006 2:58 PM (e)

I definitely would have liked to see Australia. It is similar to the other countries on the list in terms of wealth, heritage and industrialization, and they’ve had some interesting faith/politics clashes of their own. Plus, isn’t Ken Ham Australian?

Comment #118893

Posted by Peter Henderson on August 11, 2006 3:53 PM (e)

Re:”But then you still haven’t explained how the Colorado moved uphill into the Kaibab Plateau in order to carve the Grand Canyon, how the Chicxulub crater manages to date to the same time as the iridium layer, why relative dating and absolute dating are in agreement, or why it is that DNA dates correspond rather closely (where preservation is reasonably expected) to fossil dates in documenting divergences”

Didn’t you know Glen that the answer is here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/dating.asp

As you can see, radiometric dating does not prove the Earth is 4.55 billion years old. (I’m being sarcastic by the way !). With research like this blinding people with science it’s no wonder that 28% of people questioned believe that the earliest humans lived along side dinosaurs.

Comment #118894

Posted by Tilsim on August 11, 2006 3:57 PM (e)

On a side note: Turkey is not an ‘Arab country’ by any definition.

Comment #118903

Posted by Mr Christopher on August 11, 2006 4:35 PM (e)

Turks are Turks, Arabs are Arabs. Consult a Greek if you need someone to distinguish the two for you.

Turkey is also a secular state.

Comment #118904

Posted by Arden Chatfield on August 11, 2006 4:36 PM (e)

afdave on August 11, 2006 02:26 PM (e)

This must be like GOLF SCORES.

America is near the bottom of the chart which explains why we are one of the world’s leading countries.

So, uh, Dave, this means you believe that Turkey is a better country than the US, and that the world’s ‘leading countries’ are the US, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, and Iran?

Would you care to elaborate on that belief?

Comment #118906

Posted by Arden Chatfield on August 11, 2006 4:41 PM (e)

Turks are Turks, Arabs are Arabs. Consult a Greek if you need someone to distinguish the two for you.

Iranians, Pakistanis, and Afghans aren’t Arabs either, but Americans are so ignorant of the rest of the world, the popular equation seems to be ‘Arab’ = ‘Middle Easterner’ = ‘Muslim’, like they’re all synonyms. It’s rather embarrassing.

Turkey is also a secular state.

It’s also a democracy, unlike many other countries America supports.

Ataturk dragged Turkey into the 20th century kicking and screaming. Clearly the kicking and screaming hasn’t stopped yet.

Comment #118912

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on August 11, 2006 5:18 PM (e)

Iranians, Pakistanis, and Afghans aren’t Arabs either, but Americans are so ignorant of the rest of the world, the popular equation seems to be ‘Arab’ = ‘Middle Easterner’ = ‘Muslim’, like they’re all synonyms. It’s rather embarrassing.

Remember in the post-9/11 period when Americans were running around beating up Sikhs because they had dark skin and wore turbans? Truly, we are a boorish pig-ignorant lot.

Heck, most Americans don’t even know that the majority of the world’s Muslims don’t live in the Middle East. Most of them live in southern and southeast Asia.

But then, most Americans don’t know where THAT is, either.

Comment #118927

Posted by gengar on August 11, 2006 6:13 PM (e)

In truth, I’m not sure what the point of the polling was. Was it to show the US population’s beliefs in an unfavorable light?

Well, it certainly shows the USA’s scientific literacy in an unfavorable light. That’s not news - but this paper is trying to look at why exactly that is, by comparing the attitudes towards evolution with other demographic data for the respondants. The EU countries, as (mostly) liberal democracies with comparable standards of education, act as a control. Table S1 in the Supplementary Material shows that religious beliefs have a much stronger (negative) effect on attitudes towards evolution on your side of the pond, and there’s also a political dimension which we just don’t see at all over here.

Comment #118929

Posted by Popper's ghost on August 11, 2006 6:18 PM (e)

Americans are so ignorant of the rest of the world, the popular equation seems to be ‘Arab’ = ‘Middle Easterner’ = ‘Muslim’, like they’re all synonyms.

Ignorance and very high levels of racism – which is sanctioned and reinforced by the government and the media. It goes way beyond “embarrassing”.

Comment #118930

Posted by Popper's ghost on August 11, 2006 6:23 PM (e)

It’s also a democracy, unlike many other countries America supports.

Which helps explain why Turkey refused U.S. passage during the invasion of Iraq – 90% of the populace was opposed.

Comment #118975

Posted by Robert O'Brien on August 11, 2006 11:42 PM (e)

Arden Chatfield wrote:

Iranians, Pakistanis, and Afghans aren’t Arabs either…

They have, however, been Arabized.

Arden Chatfield wrote:

[Turkey is] also a democracy…

But not a good one.

Comment #118980

Posted by Michael Suttkus, II on August 12, 2006 12:03 AM (e)

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:

Remember in the post-9/11 period when Americans were running around beating up Sikhs because they had dark skin and wore turbans? Truly, we are a boorish pig-ignorant lot.

I was living in Jacksonville, FL at the time. The morons there attacked and beat up a Greek family as “Arabs”. This was in a restaurant they ran that was labeled “GREEK” in large letters! It was even before the culprits in the attack had been identified.

Comment #118987

Posted by Popper's ghost on August 12, 2006 1:04 AM (e)

They have, however, been Arabized.

No, but O’Brien seems to have been lobotomized.

Comment #118988

Posted by Sir_Toejam on August 12, 2006 1:04 AM (e)

They have, however, been Arabized.

Arabized?

oh you muslimaniac you.

perhaps you could try a bit more research instead of inventing words to express your ignorance.

Comment #118996

Posted by Robert O'Brien on August 12, 2006 2:16 AM (e)

Pill Popper's Ghost wrote:

Robert O'Brien wrote:

They have, however, been Arabized.

No…

Yes. The cultures of those countries (including, most importantly, their languages and religions) have been greatly influenced by Arabic culture. I account for your ignorance of this most uncontroversial fact by attributing it to your discipline, which from your banal username I deduce is worthless philosophy.

Sir_Toejam wrote:

Arabized?

oh you muslimaniac you.

perhaps you could try a bit more research instead of inventing words to express your ignorance.

Arabized

My good Toejam, I thought you would have learned the last time I handed your ass back to you on a silver charger. By the way, if you and Pill Popper’s Ghost are going to share a brain, then at least get one that works.

Comment #119000

Posted by Sir_Toejam on August 12, 2006 2:48 AM (e)

My good Toejam, I thought you would have learned the last time I handed your ass back to you on a silver charger. By the way, if you and Pill Popper’s Ghost are going to share a brain, then at least get one that works.

one, you missed the point. which shouldn’t surprise me. My surprise wasn’t at the word, but how you used it. I suppose i should have said “made up context” instead of made up word, which is technically more accurate.

two, handed my ass to me you say? not only do I not recall any such, but would be more than happy to hand you your “ass” on any topic you wish.

shouldn’t be hard, really, and I don’t even know you. I can just tell from your comments here that your an ignorant moron.

I’ll make a thread for you to play on over at ATBC.

it’ll have your name on it.

feel free to tell us all what’s what.

one more idiot posting in there should just add to the flavor, but i do wonder if you will be able to give AFDave a run for his money.

Comment #119005

Posted by Popper's ghost on August 12, 2006 4:01 AM (e)

The cultures of those countries (including, most importantly, their languages and religions) have been greatly influenced by Arabic culture.

Which, of course, is not wht “Arabized” means.

Comment #119006

Posted by Popper's ghost on August 12, 2006 4:18 AM (e)

FWIW, here are some facts from the CIA World Factbook:

Iran:
Ethnic groups: Persian 51%, Azeri 24%, Gilaki and Mazandarani 8%, Kurd 7%, Arab 3%, Lur 2%, Baloch 2%, Turkmen 2%, other 1%
Languages: Persian and Persian dialects 58%, Turkic and Turkic dialects 26%, Kurdish 9%, Luri 2%, Balochi 1%, Arabic 1%, Turkish 1%, other 2%

Pakistan:
Ethnic groups: Punjabi, Sindhi, Pashtun (Pathan), Baloch, Muhajir (immigrants from India at the time of partition and their descendants)
Languages: Punjabi 48%, Sindhi 12%, Siraiki (a Punjabi variant) 10%, Pashtu 8%, Urdu (official) 8%, Balochi 3%, Hindko 2%, Brahui 1%, English (official and lingua franca of Pakistani elite and most government ministries), Burushaski, and other 8%

Afghanistan:
Ethnic groups: Pashtun 42%, Tajik 27%, Hazara 9%, Uzbek 9%, Aimak 4%, Turkmen 3%, Baloch 2%, other 4%
Languages: Afghan Persian or Dari (official) 50%, Pashtu (official) 35%, Turkic languages (primarily Uzbek and Turkmen) 11%, 30 minor languages (primarily Balochi and Pashai) 4%, much bilingualism

Comment #119020

Posted by Arden Chatfield on August 12, 2006 8:15 AM (e)

Iranians, Pakistanis, and Afghans aren’t Arabs either…

They have, however, been Arabized.

No they haven’t. They do NOT speak Arabic in any of those three countries, which is a key component of being ‘Arabized’.

By your criteria, the west is ‘Romanized’.

I think your criteria conflate ‘Arab’ with ‘Islamic’.

[Turkey is] also a democracy…

But not a good one.

Their national elections probably aren’t much worse than America’s.

Comment #119021

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on August 12, 2006 8:33 AM (e)

Their national elections probably aren’t much worse than America’s.

Indeed. I don’t recall any instance where the courts decided who their next president would be. And they, at least, have more than two political parties.

Comment #119034

Posted by The Atheist Jew on August 12, 2006 9:48 AM (e)

I think we need to shame the Fundy Christians into accepting evolution.
I might be onto something with my last blog entry: THE USA IS ISLAMIC WHEN IT COMES TO EVOLUTION, where I add a line: So it looks like Ann Coulter and Muslims do have something in common.

We should attack creationists by comparing them directly to third world Muslims.

Comment #119035

Posted by Anonymous_Coward on August 12, 2006 9:51 AM (e)

I definitely would have liked to see Australia. It is similar to the other countries on the list in terms of wealth, heritage and industrialization, and they’ve had some interesting faith/politics clashes of their own. Plus, isn’t Ken Ham Australian?

Not to me he isn’t.

A bit of info on that.

A few months ago, the Liberal party line (surprise surprise) mirrored that of Bush’s comments that students should be presented with “all the relevant information”.

The Treasurer has also stated that Australia should remain a secular state. But then again, the Australian government doesn’t seem to know about the blatanly “unsecular” motive of anti-science movements like Creationism and ID.

Comment #119036

Posted by The Atheist Jew on August 12, 2006 9:54 AM (e)

I think we need to shame the Fundy Christians into accepting evolution.
I might be onto something with my last blog entry: THE USA IS ISLAMIC WHEN IT COMES TO EVOLUTION, where I add a line: So it looks like Ann Coulter and Muslims do have something in common.

We should attack creationists by comparing them directly to third world Muslims.

Comment #119037

Posted by Anonymous_Coward on August 12, 2006 9:56 AM (e)

We should attack creationists by comparing them directly to third world Muslims.

That’s been done and it hasn’t worked.

I’ve seen many political commentators calling the Religious Right a kind of “Christian Taliban” or “American Taliban” or something along those lines.

Creationists and fundies in general have a mental block where they just can’t think of or realise anything without the Bible. They won’t be able to see how they are the same as the people they hate simply because they perceive their God to be different.

“Allah” is a false God for creating a religion that limits women’s rights, but “Jesus” is the one true God and women should stay home and have children while the men go to work.

Comment #119042

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on August 12, 2006 10:54 AM (e)

Indeed, most American fundies are too utterly pig-ignorant to even realize that “God” and “Allah” are one and the same. “Allah” is simply the Arabic word for “God”, just as “Dieu” is the French word and “Gott” is the German word.

Both the Muslims and the Christians worship precisely the same deity.

Comment #119047

Posted by Peter Henderson on August 12, 2006 11:30 AM (e)

The story was covered by Fox News:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,207858,00.html

and it provoked this response from AIG:

. FOX NEWS: U.S. Lags Behind Europe, Japan in Acceptance of Evolution

It is no surprise that this study’s results are presented as the United States “lagging behind” other countries in acceptance of evolution—can you imagine a news organization printing these results under the heading “Europe, Japan Lag Behind U.S. in Acceptance of Creation”? But the headline matches the pro-evolution spin in this article.

Interestingly, over the 20 years this study was conducted, not only did the level of acceptance of evolution fall in the US, but so did the level of acceptance of creation. But perhaps most interesting—and frightening—is this comment:

Paul Meyers, a biologist at the University of Minnesota who was not involved in the study, says that what politicians should be doing [instead of legislating for more open discussion of evolution in schools] is saying, “We ought to defer these questions to qualified authorities and we should have committees of scientists and engineers whom we will approach for the right answers.”
How long will it be till Americans have to contact the scientists and engineers on the National Committee for the Determination of Human Origins and ask, “What does the word yom mean in Genesis 1?”

The last sentence is reminiscent of Ken Ham telling kids that when teachers talk about dinosaurs being alive “millions of years ago” they are to respond “Excuse me sir, but where you there ?”

Comment #119048

Posted by Arden Chatfield on August 12, 2006 11:34 AM (e)

It is no surprise that this study’s results are presented as the United States “lagging behind” other countries in acceptance of evolution—can you imagine a news organization printing these results under the heading “Europe, Japan Lag Behind U.S. in Acceptance of Creation”? But the headline matches the pro-evolution spin in this article.

Perhaps they should have worded it like this?:

U.S. Leads Third World and Islamic Nations in Rejecting Evolution

Comment #119052

Posted by Jessica on August 12, 2006 12:04 PM (e)

Of course, one would beg to question, where are the other 3 billion people on Earth in this survey? How about some of the world’s largest nations (by population or land mass): China, India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Brazil; or South Africa, Pakistan, Mexico, Canada (as mentioned before), Phillipines, New Zealand, Australia, et cetera. Of course one could imagine that in some countries, pollsters would find difficulty asking these questions due to violent reactions (i.e. Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia, or the Phillipines), political distaste for the polls (China), or a gross poverty of education variant (Bangladesh and much of Africa).

Secondly, it is true the question definite matters. Here’s an example of statements that would get significantly or even dramatically different response totals:

- Human beings were created by God as whole persons and did not evolve from earlier forms of life.
- Human beings were created by God and did not evolve from earlier forms of life.
- Human beings were created by God and evolved from earlier forms of life.
- Human beings were not created by God and evolved from earlier forms of life.
- Human beings were not created by God, but did not evolve from earlier forms of life.

The first and second are similar, but different enough. The last is unlikely to get a lot of responses, but certainly could. The third is my own belief. I believe evolution is a function of the Divine, and that all science is the study of how the Divine manifests and manipulates creation, translated to our level of understanding so we can in turn become creators ourselves.

Comment #119053

Posted by Bob O'H on August 12, 2006 12:21 PM (e)

Of course, one would beg to question, where are the other 3 billion people on Earth in this survey?

This wasn’t a survey: it was a meta-analysis of several other surveys. If you want to know why other countries were not included, then one should first ask whether the other countries have carried out similar surveys, and if they have, then ask the authors of the article why they weren’t included. It’s possible that suitable surveys are available, but the authors were not aware of them.

Bob

Comment #119059

Posted by Moses on August 12, 2006 3:09 PM (e)

Comment #118996

Posted by Robert O’Brien on August 12, 2006 02:16 AM (e)

Yes. The cultures of those countries (including, most importantly, their languages and religions) have been greatly influenced by Arabic culture. I account for your ignorance of this most uncontroversial fact by attributing it to your discipline, which from your banal username I deduce is worthless philosophy.

Kind of like us and our Arabic math and astronomy. And the fueling of the Renaissance because the “Arabics” were the only ones who’d bothered to keep the culture and learning of the Greeks & Romans alive, never mind their own contributions… And of course, the huge incorporation of Arabic words into the English language, including my favorite which adequately measures you competency in this area - ZERO.

Comment #119060

Posted by Arden Chatfield on August 12, 2006 3:12 PM (e)

And of course, the huge incorporation of Arabic words into the English language, including my favorite which adequately measures you competency in this area - ZERO.

Actually, the number of Arabic loanwords in English is fairly modest, though a disproportionate number of them are terms used in either astronomy or math.

Comment #119070

Posted by Peter Henderson on August 12, 2006 4:19 PM (e)

And of course, the huge incorporation of Arabic words into the English language, including my favorite which adequately measures you competency in this area - ZERO.

Moses: I did a quick google search and found this:

http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/980422/1998042208.html

Which I took from this website:

http://www.al-bab.com/arab/science.htm

Seemingly, Arab nations were once at the forefront of science !

Comment #119082

Posted by Dave Fafarman on August 12, 2006 7:24 PM (e)

Re “Why Iceland?”, Steviepinhead (#118666) wrote:

Iceland (gosh, only one slip of the finger away from Idland, and yet there at the top of the anti-ID scale): …

It’s actually even closer than that – Iceland in Icelandic is “Island” (just one keycap over).

But here’s my highly-speculative pet theory: a long-running genealogical research study has been taking advantage of that very high degree of Icelandic ethnic/genetic homogeneity (and of well-documented church, family, and government records of marriages, births, and deaths), which makes it “easy” to cleanly isolate genetic diseases (and trace them back to the ancestor with the founding mutation, chromoosome mismatch, or what have you).

Virtually every Icelander is familiar with this study and the underlying (that is to say, common descent with variation) rationales for why it works and why it’s important.

Yes, I agree this is the likely explanation. BTW, here is the company that has been running the studies. They have an interesting website (take the “Virtual Tour” – button lower right).

Comment #119083

Posted by Popper's ghost on August 12, 2006 7:32 PM (e)

Seemingly, Arab nations were once at the forefront of science !

The Arab-Muslim world was undoubtedly at the forefront of science while Europe was mired in the Dark Ages. See, e.g.,
http://www1.umn.edu/umnnews/Columns/SciFri/SciFri_3.18.05_Light_in_the_Dark_Agesancient_Arab_and_Persian_scholars.html

To get an idea how pervasive the influence of Arab mathematicians was during the Middle Ages, visit the MacTutor History of Mathematics Archive and look for biographies of mathematicians born between A.D. 500 and A.D. 999. You’ll find the vast majority of names are Arabic….

To read more on the development of science during ancient and Medieval times, see Isaac Asimov’s Biographical Encyclopedia of Science and Technology, the source for much of this article.

Comment #119156

Posted by Wing|esS on August 13, 2006 8:31 AM (e)

Comparing Turkey and Iceland… I don’t think either is a desirable result. For one, Iceland seems to be a nation of fishermen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceland#Demographics

So I doubt that their acceptance of evolution is an indicator of their progressiveness but rather their ignorance. (lack of scientific knowledge)

On the other hand, acceptance of evolution is probably hampered by religious beliefs in the mainly Islamic nation of Turkey.

I think the United States is just fine the way it is. I do know that Naturalistic Evolution is full of holes. (which is probably the reason why they never seem to crush Creation Science) If people reject evolution with the full knowledge of what it entails I think that it is perfectly justifed.

Comment #119169

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on August 13, 2006 9:22 AM (e)

I do know that Naturalistic Evolution is full of holes. (which is probably the reason why they never seem to crush Creation Science)

What’s the reason why pyramid power, ESP, Bigfoot, flying saucers, alien abductions or the Lost Continent of Atlantis never get crushed?

Comment #119173

Posted by Wing|esS on August 13, 2006 9:31 AM (e)

Strange as I may sound, I don’t believe that there is a wide enough public acceptance pyramid power, ESP, Bigfoot, flying saucers, alien abductions or the Lost Continent of Atlantis, such that they actually need a survey to cerify this.

Comment #119182

Posted by Wing|esS on August 13, 2006 10:11 AM (e)

‘Rev Dr’ Lenny Flank: “Don’t focus on the science…….Don’t do it. This fight is a political fight. It’s simply not about science.” - http://www.geocities.com/lflank/

I’ve always been interested in what both parties have to say about each other. Maybe you are right that IDers have a political agenda, but then again so do you. Whether you are right or wrong, I don’t think you should mix politics with science. It brings you down to the same level as the “Uneducated Creationists”. Maybe you just can’t win a scientific argument. Maybe you can. How am I supposed to know if you rely on politics?

Comment #119186

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on August 13, 2006 10:25 AM (e)

Maybe you just can’t win a scientific argument. Maybe you can. How am I supposed to know if you rely on politics?

Number of peer-reviewed science findings published by evolutionary biologists every year: thousands

Number of peer-reviewed science findings published by ID/creationists every year: zero

None of those rely on “politics”.

Game over.

(shrug)

Your side shot its load. It lost. Get used to it.

Comment #119187

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on August 13, 2006 10:26 AM (e)

I don’t believe that there is a wide enough public acceptance pyramid power, ESP, Bigfoot, flying saucers, alien abductions or the Lost Continent of Atlantis, such that they actually need a survey to cerify this.

As a matter of fact, public acceptance of those things is higher, in each case, than it is for creation ‘science’.

Comment #119203

Posted by Wing|esS on August 13, 2006 11:09 AM (e)

It is interesting that you assume that I even have a side. Maybe you’re just shooting yourself in your own foot.

Comment #119206

Posted by MrKAT on August 13, 2006 11:14 AM (e)

Art Hobson wrote somebit surprising in 2003:
“Miller found that the percentage of American adults who were scientifically literate increased from 10% to 17% during 1990 to 1999. Although these levels are low, surely too low for the requirements of a democratic society in today’s world, they are higher than the level for European adults in 1992 (5%), for Canadian adults in 1989 (4%), and for Japanese adults in 1991 (3%) (Ref. 8, p. 2; Ref. 6, p. 98). “

http://www.aps.org/units/fed/newsletters/summer2003/hobson.cfm

Comment #119207

Posted by steve s on August 13, 2006 11:29 AM (e)

Comment #119173

Posted by Wing|esS on August 13, 2006 09:31 AM (e) | kill

Strange as I may sound, I don’t believe that there is a wide enough public acceptance pyramid power, ESP, Bigfoot, flying saucers, alien abductions or the Lost Continent of Atlantis, such that they actually need a survey to cerify this.

Poll: U.S. hiding knowledge of aliens

June 15, 1997
Web posted at: 12:00 p.m. EDT

(CNN) – Nearly 50 years since an alleged UFO was sighted at Roswell, New Mexico, a new CNN/Time poll released Sunday shows that 80 percent of Americans think the government is hiding knowledge of the existence of extraterrestrial life forms.

Comment #119214

Posted by Wing|esS on August 13, 2006 12:25 PM (e)

“Number of peer-reviewed science findings published by ID/creationists every year: zero” -
‘Rev Dr’ Lenny Flank

““Intelligent design” (ID) advocate Stephen C. Meyer has produced a “review article” that folds the various lines of “intelligent design” antievolutionary argumentation into one lump. The article is published in the journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. We congratulate ID on finally getting an article in a peer-reviewed biology journal” - http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/08/meyers_hopeless_1.html

I find you a liar, ‘Rev Dr’ Lenny Flank
and I seriouly doubt you interllectual honesty.

Comment #119217

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on August 13, 2006 12:50 PM (e)

“Intelligent design” (ID) advocate Stephen C. Meyer has produced a “review article”

STATEMENT FROM THE COUNCIL OF THE BIOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON

The paper by Stephen C. Meyer, “The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories,” in vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239 of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, was published at the discretion of the former editor, Richard v. Sternberg. Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. The Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, and the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history.

Who’s the liar, my fundie friend?

Comment #119218

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on August 13, 2006 12:53 PM (e)

It is interesting that you assume that I even have a side

Don’t bullshit me, my fundie friend.

Comment #119219

Posted by Laser on August 13, 2006 12:55 PM (e)

Wing|esS wrote:

It is interesting that you assume that I even have a side. Maybe you’re just shooting yourself in your own foot.

Oh really?

Wing|esS earlier wrote:

I think the United States is just fine the way it is. I do know that Naturalistic Evolution is full of holes. (which is probably the reason why they never seem to crush Creation Science) If people reject evolution with the full knowledge of what it entails I think that it is perfectly justifed.

That seems like pretty clear endorsement of the anti-evolution side by you.

Comment #119221

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on August 13, 2006 1:05 PM (e)

Maybe you are right that IDers have a political agenda

Indeed. They themselves have described it in some detail:

http://www.geocities.com/lflank/wedge.html

but then again so do you.

I certainly do. One of my very best friends is from Iran, and has seen firsthand what happens when fundamentalist religious nuts are allowed to gain real political power. I have no intention whatsoever of allowing that to happen here, and I will fight against it with every weapon at my disposal. My aim, quite simply, is to destroy fundamentalist ID/creationism as a political movement. Completely and totally.

If you don’t want to get your nose bloody in that fight, then I suggest you go cloister yourself in your holy monastery and don’t attempt to venture out into the real world.

Heat, kitchen, and all that.

Comment #119229

Posted by Arden Chatfield on August 13, 2006 1:47 PM (e)

It is interesting that you assume that I even have a side. Maybe you’re just shooting yourself in your own foot.

Really?

But you say this:

I do know that Naturalistic Evolution is full of holes. (which is probably the reason why they never seem to crush Creation Science)

Your attempts to be coy aren’t impressing anyone. We’ve seen it a million times. I recommend trying a different angle.

Comment #119249

Posted by Laser on August 13, 2006 2:46 PM (e)

Is there an echo in here?

Comment #119267

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on August 13, 2006 3:53 PM (e)

I recommend trying a different angle.

I suggest producing a scientific theory of creation/ID that can be tested using the scientific method, and showing it to us.

No one’s EVER taken *that* particular angle. (Although I strongly suspect that there’s a very good particular reason for that ….)

Comment #119276

Posted by Andrew McClure on August 13, 2006 4:46 PM (e)

Arden Chatfield wrote:

Actually, the number of Arabic loanwords in English is fairly modest, though a disproportionate number of them are terms used in either astronomy or math.

Spanish has quite a large number of Arab loanwords, though, some quite basic, if I’m not mistaken.

I wonder if this makes Mexico “Arabized”

Comment #119283

Posted by Carsten S on August 13, 2006 5:25 PM (e)

I am quite shocked about the low acceptance in Germany. Does anybody know what the exact question was there?

Thanks,

Carsten

Comment #119294

Posted by Anton Mates on August 13, 2006 6:26 PM (e)

Wing|esS wrote:

Comparing Turkey and Iceland… I don’t think either is a desirable result. For one, Iceland seems to be a nation of fishermen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceland#Demographic…

So I doubt that their acceptance of evolution is an indicator of their progressiveness but rather their ignorance. (lack of scientific knowledge)

Yeah, that’s why they have the 11th-highest per capita GDP in the world and their 15-year-olds beat ours in science literacy, math literacy and problem-solving ability. Ignorant fishermen, those Icelandese.

Comment #119304

Posted by Popper's ghost on August 13, 2006 7:55 PM (e)

So I doubt that their acceptance of evolution is an indicator of their progressiveness but rather their ignorance. (lack of scientific knowledge)

That’s ironic, someone proving his ignorance by making such an ignorant and foolish claim, one that is refuted by the very page he cited. The section that he pointed to says “the fact that Iceland was never isolated from the rest of Europe and actually has had a lot of contact with traders and fishermen from many nations through the ages” which not only doesn’t say that Iceland is “a nation of fishermen”, but implies otherwise. And further on that page:

Iceland is the 5th richest country in the world based on GDP per capita at purchasing power parity. It is also ranked number two on the 2005 United Nations Human Development Index. The economy historically depended heavily on the fishing industry, which still provides almost 40% of export earnings and employs 8% of the work force. In the absence of other natural resources (except for abundant hydro-electric and geothermal power), Iceland’s economy is vulnerable to changing world fish prices. The economy remains sensitive to declining fish stocks as well as to drops in world prices for its main material exports: fish and fish products, aluminium, and ferrosilicon. Although the Icelandic economy still relies heavily on fishing it is constantly becoming less important as the travel industry and other service, technology, energy intensive and various other industries grow. [4]

The centre-right government plans to continue its policies of reducing the budget and current account deficits, limiting foreign borrowing, containing inflation, revising agricultural and fishing policies, diversifying the economy, and privatising state-owned industries. The government remains opposed to EU membership, primarily because of Icelanders’ concern about losing control over their fishing resources.

Iceland’s economy has been diversifying into manufacturing and service industries in the last decade, and new developments in software production, biotechnology, and financial services are taking place. The tourism sector is also expanding, with the recent trends in ecotourism and whale-watching. Growth slowed between 2000 and 2002, but the economy expanded by 4.3% in 2003 and grew by 6.2% in 2004. The unemployment rate of 1.8% (3rd quarter of 2005) is among the lowest in the European Economic Area.

Over 99% of the country’s electricity is produced from hydropower and geothermal energy. [4]

Iceland’s agriculture industry consists mainly of potatoes, green vegetables, mutton, dairy products and fish. [4]

Iceland’s stock market, the Iceland Stock Exchange (ISE), was established in 1985.

So I guess Iceland is a nation of ignorant fishermen the way the U.S. is a nation of ignorant farmers and burger flippers.

Comment #119306

Posted by Popper's ghost on August 13, 2006 8:05 PM (e)

Another fact about Iceland, probably more relevant here than that a whopping 8% of the work force is employed by the fishing industry, is

Most Icelanders are either very liberal in their religious beliefs or uninterested in religious matters altogether, and predominantly do not attend church regularly or even at all.

Comment #119307

Posted by steve s on August 13, 2006 8:15 PM (e)

I love the ridiculous ones, but it would be nice to have an occasional decent opponent.

Comment #119309

Posted by steve s on August 13, 2006 8:23 PM (e)

On further reflection though, I don’t think that’s possible. A decent opponent would require decent arguments for ID. None exist.

Comment #119312

Posted by Popper's ghost on August 13, 2006 8:36 PM (e)

As I just wrote in another thread,

As always, people who start out writing such things as “the possibility that an alternative evolutionary theory e.g. neo-Lamarckism might prove superior to neo-Darwinism” and “It seems to me that the Intelligent Design theorists make a fair point” end up demonstrating that their thought processes are dominated by selective perception and unscientific attitudes towards evidence.

The same goes, of course, for those who write “I do know that Naturalistic Evolution is full of holes. (which is probably the reason why they never seem to crush Creation Science) If people reject evolution with the full knowledge of what it entails I think that it is perfectly justifed.”

Comment #119319

Posted by Wing|esS on August 13, 2006 9:32 PM (e)

“Iceland is the 5th richest country in the world based on GDP per capita at purchasing power parity. It is also ranked number two on the 2005 United Nations Human Development Index. The economy historically depended heavily on the fishing industry, which still provides almost 40% of export earnings and employs 8% of the work force. In the absence of other natural resources (except for abundant hydro-electric and geothermal power), Iceland’s economy is vulnerable to changing world fish prices. The economy remains sensitive to declining fish stocks as well as to drops in world prices for its main material exports: fish and fish products, aluminium, and ferrosilicon. Although the Icelandic economy still relies heavily on fishing it is constantly becoming less important as the travel industry and other service, technology, energy intensive and various other industries grow. [4]”

It’s interesting that you have made the leap of faith from GDP to education level. I, on the other hand, can’t find the University of Iceland on the top 500 list. http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2005/ARWU2005TOP500list.htm

Comment #119320

Posted by Arden Chatfield on August 13, 2006 9:42 PM (e)

It’s interesting that you have made the leap of faith from GDP to education level. I, on the other hand, can’t find the University of Iceland on the top 500 list. http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2005/ARWU2005TOP500li…

That would be due to the fact that Iceland only has a population of 293,000 people, genius.

It’s interesting that you made the leap of faith that Iceland is a ‘nation of fishermen’ when only 8% of them do that for a living.

No response to this:

Yeah, that’s why they have the 11th-highest per capita GDP in the world and their 15-year-olds beat ours in science literacy, math literacy and problem-solving ability.

…or any of the other refutations of your inane statements?

Comment #119333

Posted by Darth Robo on August 13, 2006 11:14 PM (e)

Wingless said:

“I find you a liar, ‘Rev Dr’ Lenny Flank
and I seriouly doubt you interllectual honesty.”

Dude. The very link you referred people to made you look like a DONUT! Tip - don’t make yourself look like a donut before you mention someone else’s “interllectual honesty.”

Comment #119356

Posted by Popper's ghost on August 14, 2006 1:48 AM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'quote'

Comment #119358

Posted by Popper's ghost on August 14, 2006 1:56 AM (e)

It’s interesting that you have made the leap of faith from GDP to education level.

You, sir, are a hypocritical lying moron. You quoted material I posted, but I made no such leap. Now tell us why you wrote “Iceland seems to be a nation of fishermen” and “I doubt that their acceptance of evolution is an indicator of their progressiveness but rather their ignorance. (lack of scientific knowledge)” when the evidence doesn’t support those claims.

Comment #119360

Posted by Popper's ghost on August 14, 2006 2:02 AM (e)

It’s interesting that you made the leap of faith that Iceland is a ‘nation of fishermen’ when only 8% of them do that for a living.

8% of the work force is employed by the fishing industry; that doesn’t mean they’re all fishermen. Aside from managers, accountants, secretaries, etc., some of them might be, say, marine biologists.

Comment #119362

Posted by Popper's ghost on August 14, 2006 2:15 AM (e)

And just for yucks I googled fishing industry jobs and this popped up:
http://www.jobmonkey.com/alaska/

Jobs include working on the processing line, operating machinery, being a deckhand, quality control, or even finding a job as a government inspector or aquaculture scientist.

Of course, all of this is irrelevant; even if 100% of the work force of Iceland made their living with a rod and reel, that still wouldn’t justify ding|dong’s assumption that their acceptance of evolution is due to lack scientific knowledge.

Comment #119368

Posted by Wing|esS on August 14, 2006 2:56 AM (e)

“That would be due to the fact that Iceland only has a population of 293,000 people, genius.” - Arden Chatfield

I’m convinced that they are a reasonably educated lot now, (although whether most are educated in biology is questionable) but I think that a small population is probably more easily persuaded than a larger population.

And ‘Rev Dr’ Lenny Flank, the fact of the matter is,

1. Meyer managed to get his article published in the journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.

Which, regardless of how it occurred, testifies against your statement:

2. “Number of peer-reviewed science findings published by ID/creationists every year: zero” as false.

You invoked the use of the “No True Scotsman” fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman

Comment #119370

Posted by Grey Wolf on August 14, 2006 2:57 AM (e)

Andrew wrote:

Spanish has quite a large number of Arab loanwords, though, some quite basic, if I’m not mistaken

Pulling it out from a long forgotten Spanish lesson, I think up to 5000 words of Spanish have their roots in arabic. This number blooms into far more, however, if you count geographical places (most of Spain’s rivers, and many of the towns, still retain their arabic names - Alhambra, Guadalquivir, Guadarrama, etc).

Some of the words are very basic indeed - “almohada” (pillow), “almacén” (warehouse), “albóndiga” (meat ball), “albaricoque” (peach). And of course, “alcohol”. For the seriously interested, there is a wikipedia article:

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

And English may not have taken up so many words, but given that what men mostly prefer to talk about is alcohol, I’d say that at least one arab word is always at the forefront of English ;D

Carsten wrote:

I am quite shocked about the low acceptance in Germany. Does anybody know what the exact question was there?

Have you considered that one of the biggest turk cities in the world (if not the biggest) is actually Berlin, Germany? The Turk population of Germany is *huge*. It stands to reason that they drag the average for Germany down towards the Turk average.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

Comment #119371

Posted by Grey Wolf on August 14, 2006 3:11 AM (e)

Wing|ess wrote:

Meyer managed to get his article published in the journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington

In short: That article does not support Creationism or intelligent Design.

In long: This is not a “true scotman” defence, but simply common sense: the article “concludes” that “someone” artificially caused the “Cambrian Explosion”. It was not peer reviewed, which accounts for the huge number of errors. But even ignoring its many problems, it accepts evolution for the last 3.5 billion years. It does not support ID or creationism in any way.

Why not ID, you ask? Because ID doesn’t have a theory that *can* be supported. And this is the point, Wing|ess, were you put something on your side and either present a scientific ID theory, or admit that there is no such thing, and thus that there is no alternative to the science of the Theory of Evolution.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

Comment #119374

Posted by Wing|esS on August 14, 2006 3:24 AM (e)

To further prove my point on why ‘Rev Dr’ Lenny Flank is a liar when he asserted his statement:

“Number of peer-reviewed science findings published by ID/creationists every year: zero”

I just found this statement on the Panda’s Thumb:

“Is this the long-awaited peer-reviewed publication which will finally do it?” - http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/10/theory_is_as_th.html

Apparently ‘Rev Dr’ Lenny Flank claims that there are no peer-reviewed science finding by IDers but this website keeps claiming the exact opposite! I think the ICR deserved to be disbanded if they really were dishonest Creationists but apparently this community is no better.

Comment #119376

Posted by Popper's ghost on August 14, 2006 3:40 AM (e)

I think that a small population is probably more easily persuaded than a larger population.

Of course you do, because you’re an intellectually dishonest twit who can always find a reason to rationalize your prior belief. But the issue is not whether a population believes something (whatever that could mean), but what fraction of a population believes it. So what you’re really claiming is that beliefs are likely to shared by larger fractions of smaller populations than of larger populations, which is obviously ridiculous and baseless.

You invoked the use of the “No True Scotsman” fallacy

And you’re invoking the fallacy of quibbling about a red herring, because Lenny’s point, which refuted your nonsense, would have been just valid if he had said “one” instead of “zero”. But in fact it isn’t a No True Scotsman fallacy, because it wasn’t “peer-reviewed science findings”, it was a review article, published in a peer-reviewed journal at the discretion of the editor. It was no more peer-reviewed than the ads. The wording of your statement “Meyer managed to get his article published in the journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington” indicates that you are well aware of this, making you a lying troll, as if that weren’t already obvious.

Comment #119380

Posted by Popper's ghost on August 14, 2006 3:49 AM (e)

“Is this the long-awaited peer-reviewed publication which will finally do it?”

The next word was, of course “no”. Behe’s paper doesn’t support ID – just the opposite. Lenny’s statement is technically false, but what is relevant is that no peer-reviewed articles by IDiots support IDiocy.

I think the ICR deserved to be disbanded if they really were dishonest Creationists but apparently this community is no better.

Why should anyone care what a transparently dishonest troll thinks?

Comment #119384

Posted by Grey Wolf on August 14, 2006 3:55 AM (e)

Wing|ess wrote:

I just found this statement on the Panda’s Thumb:

“Is this the long-awaited peer-reviewed publication which will finally do it?” - http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/10/theo…

Apparently ‘Rev Dr’ Lenny Flank claims that there are no peer-reviewed science finding by IDers but this website keeps claiming the exact opposite!

Mr. Wing|ess, are you really so stupid that, finding an article that has a question as a title, somehow managed not to read down three paragraphs for the answer, “No.”? I.e. It is not the peer-reviewed science finding because, amongst many other problems, it is not peer reviewed.

The article mentions what Lenny has been saying all along: it is not a peer-reviewed article. Like Popper’s Ghost pointed out, you might as well claim that an ad for a revolutionary anti-dandruff soap on the back of the magazine was also peer-reviewed.

After this display of sheer idiocy, I must conclude that Wing|ess is a troll. No-one can be that clueless an obtuse without working at it.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

Comment #119386

Posted by Anonymous_Coward on August 14, 2006 4:03 AM (e)

Mr. Wing|ess, are you really so stupid that, finding an article that has a question as a title, somehow managed not to read down three paragraphs for the answer, “No.”?

Of course he’s not stupid.

But there’s simply no other way to quotemine. Duh.

And there’s simply no other way for Creationists to support their position but with quotemining. Duh.

Brain|ess wrote:

I think the ICR deserved to be disbanded if they really were dishonest Creationists but apparently this community is no better.

First of all, it’s been proven your assertions are false and quite possibly attempts to quotemine.

Second, Panda’s Thumb doesn’t seem to be taking in millions of dollars from donations from Christians. Furthermore, Panda’s Thumb doesn’t use the money for PR. In fact, no science organisation has enough money to concentrate solely on PR while the millions of dollars the Creationists get goes solely into promotion while not doing any science at all.

Third, this is a blog where almost anyone can post. You can’t expect everything to be perfect. Yet, over at communities like UD where only select people can post, EVERYTHING said is dishonest.

Comment #119387

Posted by Popper's ghost on August 14, 2006 4:05 AM (e)

I.e. It is not the peer-reviewed science finding because, amongst many other problems, it is not peer reviewed.

Grey Wolf, you’re mistaken; the Behe/Snokes article was peer-reviewed.

Here’s the deal:
Lenny said there are zero peer-reviewed articles by ID/creationists.
Wing|ess found a PT article identifying a peer-reviewed article by a prominent IDiot.
Wing|ess then said that PT is so dishonest that it should be “disbanded” – despite the fact that Lenny isn’t here to acknowledge or deny that his statement was mistaken. Even if he did make a mistake and then denied it, Lenny isn’t PT.
Wing|ess is dishonest scum.

Comment #119388

Posted by Popper's ghost on August 14, 2006 4:09 AM (e)

I should have responded to this:

The article mentions what Lenny has been saying all along: it is not a peer-reviewed article.

No, Grey Wolf, the article mentions no such thing, and has nothing to do with what Lenny was talking about, which was a paper by Stephen Meyer, not Michael Behe. Please bash the trolls accurately, not reflexively.

Comment #119392

Posted by Grey Wolf on August 14, 2006 4:17 AM (e)

Popper's Ghost wrote:

Grey Wolf, you’re mistaken; the Behe/Snokes article was peer-reviewed.

Really? Then I withdraw my statement. Mind you, I thought we were talking about the article in the proceedings. I assume this is the one were they proved a colony of bacteria could evolve something in 20000 years in a cubic square of earth, and concluded the opposite?

Nevertheless, I’m still waiting for a pro-ID article, for which we would first need an ID Theory, and Mr. Wing|ess here seems reluctant to bring one forward, just like everyone else.

Sorry for the confussion,

Grey Wolf

Comment #119393

Posted by Darth Robo on August 14, 2006 4:22 AM (e)

Hey ****less. Here is the rest of the quote you mined : -

“Is this the long-awaited peer-reviewed publication which will finally do it?

No.

Although some in the “intelligent design” community tout Behe and Snoke’s paper as the long-awaited theoretical paper (Discovery Institute 2004), it contains no “design theory”, makes no attempt to model an “intelligent design” process, and proposes no alternative to evolution.”

“there are no peer-reviewed science finding by IDers” that indicate INTELLIGENT DESIGN!!! (As shown in the very post you linked to.)

Do you feel better now that has been spelled out for you?

My ****less = DONUT theory still stands.

Comment #119397

Posted by Popper's ghost on August 14, 2006 4:30 AM (e)

Really? Then I withdraw my statement. Mind you, I thought we were talking about the article in the proceedings. I assume this is the one were they proved a colony of bacteria could evolve something in 20000 years in a cubic square of earth, and concluded the opposite?

So when you wrote read down three paragraphs for the answer, “No.”, that’s all you read? That’s no more intellectually honest that wing|ess. The “no” was not to whether the paper was peer-reviewed but rather to whether it “present[s intelligent design activists’] arguments to the scientific community”, this obviously wasn’t the article in the preceedings because that was written by Meyer while this paper was written by Behe and Snokes, and you don’t have to assume anything; just read more than one word of the PT article wing|ess linked to.

Comment #119398

Posted by Peter Henderson on August 14, 2006 4:56 AM (e)

but I think that a small population is probably more easily persuaded than a larger population.

Maybe he’s correct on this one (again I’m being sarcastic here !) Here in Northern Ireland we have a population of only 1.5 million supposedly well educated people and yet a large proportion of those have been persuaded to believe in young earth creationism ! Since AIG/ICR/D.James Kennedy (I listened for a while to his sermon “Evolution and you” on Saturday) etc. are keen to push the lie to Christians that belief in evolution leads to Nazism (Kennedy mentioned this in his sermon Sat.), racism, sexual immorality, homosexuality etc.

Its funny that Iceland hasn’t had civil unrest, countless sectarian murders/attacks on both sides of the divide etc. for the last 30 years. Even though we now have a cease fire what do we get instead ? Racist (we’ve a lot of immigrants from Eastern Europe now) and homophobic incidents etc. Although crime levels are low here by UK standards, I think Scandinavian figures are much better.

Are Iceland in favour of a Ban on the hunting of whales by the way ?

Comment #119408

Posted by Anonymous_Coward on August 14, 2006 5:53 AM (e)

Are Iceland in favour of a Ban on the hunting of whales by the way ?

Even if we revert back to the ban on commercial whaling, we still need to whale for scientific purposes.

We need to find out why whales die when you harpoon them. It’s a very difficult and important scientific question that needs to be answered.

Comment #119414

Posted by Anonymous_Coward on August 14, 2006 5:58 AM (e)

Grey Wolf wrote:

Sorry for the confussion,

Popper's ghost wrote:

and you don’t have to assume anything; just read more than one word of the PT article wing|ess linked to.

And I guess “Grey Wolf’s” just causing all of this by himself as well, Popper’s ghost?

Comment #119417

Posted by Popper's ghost on August 14, 2006 6:01 AM (e)

And I guess “Grey Wolf’s” just causing all of this by himself as well, Popper’s ghost?

Your inferences are as bad as wing|ess’s.

Comment #119418

Posted by Anonymous_Coward on August 14, 2006 6:13 AM (e)

Your inferences are as bad as wing|ess’s.

Your lack of explanation is just like wing|less’s… just like your’s.

Comment #119421

Posted by Peter Henderson on August 14, 2006 7:06 AM (e)

Even if we revert back to the ban on commercial whaling, we still need to whale for scientific purposes.

We need to find out why whales die when you harpoon them. It’s a very difficult and important scientific question that needs to be answered.

The reason why I mentioned this of course was because this was probably the last time I heard Iceland mentioned on the news. I can’t remember what their position on the issue was though.

Strangely, some countries near the top of the evolution acceptance league (Japan for instance) were in favour of lifting the ban. One would have thought they should have known better. Have they forgotten so easily the dodo or Tasmanian tiger ?

Comment #119423

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on August 14, 2006 7:13 AM (e)

And ‘Rev Dr’ Lenny Flank, the fact of the matter is,

1. Meyer managed to get his article published in the journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.

Which, regardless of how it occurred, testifies against your statement:

2. “Number of peer-reviewed science findings published by ID/creationists every year: zero” as false.

No, my dishonest fundie friend, the facts are:

(1) Meyer sneaked his paper in with the help of a creationist editor
(2) Meyer’s paper never underwent peer review of any sort
(3) Meyer’s paper did not offer a single shred of testible data or evidence in support of ID, but merely parroted the same “Cambrian explosion” argument made by creation “scientists” thirty years previously
(4) Meyer’s paper was withdrawn from publication by the journal’s editors in its very next issue, and
(5) Meyer’s paper is the ONLY “peer-reviewed journal article” claimed by IDers in the past 15 years, compared to the thousands of evolutionary science papers published each and every year.

Comment #119424

Posted by Grey Wolf on August 14, 2006 7:21 AM (e)

Peter Henders wrote:

Strangely, some countries near the top of the evolution acceptance league (Japan for instance) were in favour of lifting the ban. One would have thought they should have known better. Have they forgotten so easily the dodo or Tasmanian tiger ?

Like the siren’s call, the opportunity to make money off the whale meat is probably drowning their conscience in this particular issue.

They probably have justifying arguments, similar to the ones used by SUV-drivers about global warming or smokers about lung cancer. Asimov has a very nice essay about what he calls “security beliefs” that, amongst other things, touches on the topic.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

P.D.: You can probably find the position of Iceland in whaling in the wikipedia (that is, the article on whaling does mention the positions of several countries, including Iceland. The ‘probably’ refers to the fact that someone could’ve changed wikipedia’s data on this topic to something untrue)

Comment #119427

Posted by Michael Suttkus, II on August 14, 2006 7:42 AM (e)

steve s wrote:

I love the ridiculous ones, but it would be nice to have an occasional decent opponent.

On further reflection though, I don’t think that’s possible. A decent opponent would require decent arguments for ID. None exist.

It depends on your definitions. Back when I started debating creationists online, we got reasonable ones, which I define as creationists who were simply ignorant of the facts and evidence and who would, when presented with such, retract bad arguments and cease using them.

They were never, you understand, the most common type of creationist, but we did get them.

I haven’t seen one of that ilk in years now.

Wing|esS wrote:

…but I think that a small population is probably more easily persuaded than a larger population.

Funny, my experience is people get stupider in groups as the size goes up. I’d suggest you read “Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds”, by Charles Mackay, but I’d be wasting my time, I suppose.

Charles Mackay wrote:

Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

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

Now freely available through Project Guttenberg (links in the article above).

Comment #119443

Posted by Anonymous_Coward on August 14, 2006 8:31 AM (e)

And ‘Rev Dr’ Lenny Flank, the fact of the matter is,

1. Meyer managed to get his article published in the journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.

Which, regardless of how it occurred, testifies against your statement:

2. “Number of peer-reviewed science findings published by ID/creationists every year: zero” as false.

No, my dishonest fundie friend, the facts are:

(1) Meyer sneaked his paper in with the help of a creationist editor
(2) Meyer’s paper never underwent peer review of any sort
(3) Meyer’s paper did not offer a single shred of testible data or evidence in support of ID, but merely parroted the same “Cambrian explosion” argument made by creation “scientists” thirty years previously
(4) Meyer’s paper was withdrawn from publication by the journal’s editors in its very next issue, and
(5) Meyer’s paper is the ONLY “peer-reviewed journal article” claimed by IDers in the past 15 years, compared to the thousands of evolutionary science papers published each and every year.

Brain|ess seems to have slipped one past us.

All those facts (5 of them compared to one fabricated one) unfortunately has no relevance in Brain|ess’ mind because he does not care how the article got into publication (attested to by the part of his I bolded).

Quite sneaky: “regardless of how it occurred”.

Comment #119475

Posted by Michael Suttkus, II on August 14, 2006 9:25 AM (e)

Not sneaky enough. Lenny’s original statement was, “Number of peer-reviewed science findings published by ID/creationists every year: zero” In order to make Lenny a liar, you’d have to show that the FINDINGS were peer reviewed, not that they were published in a peer reviewed journal. wingless may not care how it got into a peer reviewed journal, but Lenny won’t be a liar until the article itself is subjected to peer review, which it wasn’t.

The fact taht it was a revew article also disqualifies it from satisfying Lenny’s demand. There were no discoveries in it at all. Even if you accepted every word in it as true, it was only a rehash of old material.

Comment #119487

Posted by Anonymous_Coward on August 14, 2006 9:58 AM (e)

In order to make Lenny a liar, you’d have to show that the FINDINGS were peer reviewed, not that they were published in a peer reviewed journal. wingless may not care how it got into a peer reviewed journal, but Lenny won’t be a liar until the article itself is subjected to peer review, which it wasn’t.

That is true.

But like many Creationist tactics, I’m thinking wing|ess was hoping that the discussion will carry on and the original premise forgotten such that he can quotemine himself to claim victory.

Unfortunately, he’s not preaching to a fundie crowd with short, selective memories.

Comment #119574

Posted by Sir_Toejam on August 14, 2006 3:24 PM (e)

Now freely available through Project Guttenberg (links in the article above).

damn! i forgot all about the online free ebook giveaway at PG. did you check that out?

Comment #119578

Posted by Sir_Toejam on August 14, 2006 3:32 PM (e)

wingless is just the typical fundie.

they claim persecution, but haven’t the slightest clue exactly what consitutes persecution.

they claim censorship, but when challenged on exactly what is being censored, haven’t the slightest clue.

they claim peer reviewed publications of their ideas, but haven’t even read the papers they claim were published in support.

It really is truly pathetic.

they claim “darwinists” are stuck in groupthink, but really I can’t think of a better example of projection.

Comment #119654

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on August 14, 2006 6:58 PM (e)

There were no discoveries in it at all. Even if you accepted every word in it as true, it was only a rehash of old material.

Indeed, it was nothing but a rehash, almost word for word, of thirty-year old ICR boilerplate. So much for that whole “ID isn’t creationism” thingie, huh.

Oddly, while Discovery Institute has a multimillion dollar budget (much of it coming from billionnaire nutter Howie Ahmanson), NONE of DI’s money goes to scientific research. Not a dime. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Not one dime.

Instead, ALL of it goes to lobbying and political PR. Indeed, when the Templeton Foundation asked DI to submit a proposal for scientific research into “design theory” for them to fund, DI ***refused to submit any***, leading Templeton to conclude that DI is just a political organization, with nothing scientific to offer.

To quote one of our present friends, “Maybe you just can’t win a scientific argument. Maybe you can. How am I supposed to know if you rely on politics?”

Comment #119656

Posted by Michael Suttkus, II on August 14, 2006 7:24 PM (e)

Sir_Toejam wrote:

damn! i forgot all about the online free ebook giveaway at PG. did you check that out?

For “Popular Delusions”? No, I’m lucky enough to have a copy of that myself. But I regularly populate my PDA with various books from Guttenberg.

Comment #119676

Posted by Popper's ghost on August 15, 2006 1:15 AM (e)

In order to make Lenny a liar, you’d have to show that the FINDINGS were peer reviewed, not that they were published in a peer reviewed journal.

Lenny’s only a liar if he knowingly told a falsehood, but there’s no evidence that he did. I do think that his statement was technically wrong, because the Behe/Snokes paper (not the Meyer paper) was not a review article, was published in a peer-reviewed journal, and was peer-reviewed, but it’s clear enough what he meant, which was a peer-reviewed article that actually supports ID, not just is authored by an ID proponent. As I wrote earlier, “what is relevant is that no peer-reviewed articles by IDiots support IDiocy”.

Comment #119687

Posted by Anonymous_Coward on August 15, 2006 3:17 AM (e)

Oddly, while Discovery Institute has a multimillion dollar budget (much of it coming from billionnaire nutter Howie Ahmanson), NONE of DI’s money goes to scientific research. Not a dime. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Not one dime.

Instead, ALL of it goes to lobbying and political PR. Indeed, when the Templeton Foundation asked DI to submit a proposal for scientific research into “design theory” for them to fund, DI ***refused to submit any***, leading Templeton to conclude that DI is just a political organization, with nothing scientific to offer.

It reminds me of the time when the tectonic theory was criticised by mainstream scientists, such that the tectonic theorists had to run a massive multimillion dollar lobbying and political PR campaign to get the theory accepted by mainstream geology.

Comment #119807

Posted by Michael Suttkus, II on August 15, 2006 12:54 PM (e)

Anonymous_Coward wrote:

It reminds me of the time when the tectonic theory was criticised by mainstream scientists, such that the tectonic theorists had to run a massive multimillion dollar lobbying and political PR campaign to get the theory accepted by mainstream geology.

Yeah, people forget about that. The bad old days when the entrenched fixed-earth materialists denied opportunity for plate tectonics in the marketplace of ideas. Tectonicists knew better than to try to convince them with science or evidence (which is all irrelevant anyway), so instead got congress to pass laws putting plate tectonics into the classroom. Once children were forced to memorize meaningless objections to fixed-earthism, they then grew up and went out and found evidence to support the beliefs instilled in them. That’s how science is supposed to work: Conclusion, then evidence!

Comment #119862

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on August 15, 2006 6:53 PM (e)

And they had all the activist judges on their side, too.

Comment #119864

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on August 15, 2006 6:56 PM (e)

it’s clear enough what he meant, which was a peer-reviewed article that actually supports ID, not just is authored by an ID proponent. As I wrote earlier, “what is relevant is that no peer-reviewed articles by IDiots support IDiocy”.

Not to mention that, as the IDers themselves now tell us, there simple IS NO SCIENTIFIC THEORY OF ID. None. At all. Not a one. There is, quite literally, nothing at all whatsoever for any such peer-reviewed article **to** “support”.

And if our new fundie friend disagrees with that, then I ask him to pleaseplease please pretty please by all means, go ahead and SHOW us this scientific theory of ID. (And TRY to do better than “something intelligent did … um … something intelligent”).

Comment #119916

Posted by Robert O'Brien on August 16, 2006 12:39 AM (e)

From Merriam Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary:

Arabize

1 a: To cause to acquire Arab customs, manners, speech, or outlook; b: to modify (a racial or national stock) by an admixture of Arab blood.

It is a historical fact that such things occurred in the countries in question. Thus, I used the term correctly.

Comment #119917

Posted by Robert O'Brien on August 16, 2006 12:48 AM (e)

Moses wrote:

Kind of like us and our Arabic math and astronomy. And the fueling of the Renaissance because the “Arabics” were the only ones who’d bothered to keep the culture and learning of the Greeks & Romans alive, never mind their own contributions… And of course, the huge incorporation of Arabic words into the English language, including my favorite which adequately measures you competency in this area - ZERO.

Arabs had that luxury thanks to the people they conquered and exploited. Speaking of which, the Arabs gained access to the learning of Antiquity via Syriac translations. Who, then, produced the Latin and Greek manuscripts (that contain minuscule script, unknown to the ancients)? Ans: The Latin Church and the Byzantine Empire. Also, the concept of zero comes from Bharat, not Arabia.

Now would be a good time to tuck your non-prehensile tail in between your legs and beat a hasty retreat, “Moses.”

Comment #119918

Posted by Robert O'Brien on August 16, 2006 12:51 AM (e)

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:

Both the Muslims and the Christians worship precisely the same deity.

Wrong. Tell me, Lenny, did you get your degree from Patriot Bible U?

Comment #119943

Posted by k.e. on August 16, 2006 6:27 AM (e)

sniff sniff ….ahh the distinctive smell of bubbling pond scum….holds wet finger up….no its the breath preachings of one of the Hydra’s unsevered heads.

‘Rev Dr’ Lenny Flank wrote:

Both the Muslims and the Christians worship precisely the same deity.

To which R. O’Brien answered:
Wrong. Tell me, Lenny, did you get your degree from Patriot Bible U?

Which explains why they are both called Abrahamic religions and Mr J. Christ is called a prophet in the Koran. And the Tomb of Abraham in Hebron which is sacred to both Islamic and Jewish belief. It has one door for Jews and one for Moslem’s since to enter through the same door would be a sin worse than death.

I can see it would be pointless to examine the fact that your so called Christian Church which was actually the tool ,pure obscurantism, used by the Absolute Monarchs of the day as a means establishing law and order, shut down the last of the Greek Pagan schools in Athens (Christian Emperor Justinian CE 529) when the authority of their ‘One true word of god’ was being questioned by a tradition of philosophical skepticism among which placing the sun at the center of the solar system invited a distasteful competitor for the divine rule of the Emperor and his agents of god, the priests.

A small hiccup giving us a 1000 years of the dark ages until the renaissance which saw the church brought kicking and screaming into the beginnings of the enlightenment.

As for the concept of zero, your considerable scholarship sums to an equivalent amount.

Comment #119947

Posted by Anonymous_Coward on August 16, 2006 6:51 AM (e)

Posted by Robert O’Brien on August 16, 2006 12:51 AM (e)

‘Rev Dr’ Lenny Flank wrote:

Both the Muslims and the Christians worship precisely the same deity.

Wrong. Tell me, Lenny, did you get your degree from Patriot Bible U?

It would seem an organisation (and I use the term loosely) such as the Patriot Bible University would be one of those which, if they had proper campuses and staff, would be teaching that Christian and Muslim theology are totally unrelated.

Comment #119953

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on August 16, 2006 7:06 AM (e)

Not terribly bright, are you, O’Brien ….

Comment #119956

Posted by k.e. on August 16, 2006 7:21 AM (e)

Slow down on the little creatures
AC, even I’m having trouble making sense of that, considering the original jibe would have produced O’Brien’s world view rather than Lenny’s

There is no need to completely bamboozle O’Brien, I think he’s doing a fine job of that by himself.

Comment #119960

Posted by Anonymous_Coward on August 16, 2006 7:37 AM (e)

even I’m having trouble making sense of that

Of my own words or of the quote? I’m too lazy to quote things properly.

But, being an evil atheist out to destroy the world with my immoral views, I actually have no desire to drink alcoholic drinks. Otherwise, I will pull something like what happened with Mel Gibson, but with my own hidden biases:

“The fundies are responsible for all the ignorance in the world! But that’s okay! As long as you’re not forcing your beliefs on others, I don’t care what you think!”

Comment #119963

Posted by Robert O'Brien on August 16, 2006 7:57 AM (e)

k.e. wrote:

Which explains why they are both called Abrahamic religions and Mr J. Christ is called a prophet in the Koran. And the Tomb of Abraham in Hebron which is sacred to both Islamic and Jewish belief. It has one door for Jews and one for Moslem’s since to enter through the same door would be a sin worse than death.

I can see it would be pointless to examine the fact that your so called Christian Church which was actually the tool ,pure obscurantism, used by the Absolute Monarchs of the day as a means establishing law and order, shut down the last of the Greek Pagan schools in Athens (Christian Emperor Justinian CE 529) when the authority of their ‘One true word of god’ was being questioned by a tradition of philosophical skepticism among which placing the sun at the center of the solar system invited a distasteful competitor for the divine rule of the Emperor and his agents of god, the priests.

A small hiccup giving us a 1000 years of the dark ages until the renaissance which saw the church brought kicking and screaming into the beginnings of the enlightenment.

As for the concept of zero, your considerable scholarship sums to an equivalent amount.

Is this your (vain) attempt to come off as intelligent? The “Dark Ages” is a historical misnomer, and anyone who still uses it as a synonym for Medieval Civilization is stuck in the Dark Ages of historical scholarship. I suggest you read some books on Medieval Scholasticism and the Byzantine Empire (or, more appropriately, have them read to you.)

Comment #119968

Posted by Robert O'Brien on August 16, 2006 8:02 AM (e)

Lenny wrote:

Not terribly bright, are you, O’Brien ….

Says the burnt-out bulb to the flood light.

Comment #119970

Posted by Anonymous_Coward on August 16, 2006 8:07 AM (e)

Is this your (vain) attempt to come off as intelligent? The “Dark Ages” is a historical misnomer, and anyone who still uses it as a synonym for Medieval Civilization is stuck in the Dark Ages of historical scholarship. I suggest you read some books on Medieval Scholasticism and the Byzantine Empire (or, more appropriately, have them read to you.)

Yes, k.e.

Don’t be an idiot.

The Dark Ages are NOW where Christian fundies rule the roost (or are trying to).

Robert O’Brien, instead of diverting attention with your ad hominem logical fallacy against k.e, why don’t your respond to the criticism of your Dark-Ages denial of Islam as an Abrahamic religion?

Comment #119988

Posted by fnxtr on August 16, 2006 9:34 AM (e)

I love the continental drift beard-tugging, AC. :-)

Comment #119990

Posted by Carsten S on August 16, 2006 10:10 AM (e)

Grey Wolf wrote:

Have you considered that one of the biggest turk cities in the world (if not the biggest) is actually Berlin, Germany?

This is obviously not true.

Grey Wolf wrote:

The Turk population of Germany is *huge*.

About 3%, I think.

Comment #120065

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on August 16, 2006 6:19 PM (e)

Well, Mr O’Brien, since you’re apparently a linguistic genius, you do, I presume, have the capability to determine what name Arab Muslims use to refer to god, and what name Arab Christians use to refer to god ….

Ever wonder why they’re, uh, the same?

It always amazes me how completely utterly crashingly pig-ignorant the fundies are about the history of their own religion …. (sigh)

Comment #120066

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on August 16, 2006 6:23 PM (e)

And if our new fundie friend disagrees with that, then I ask him to pleaseplease please pretty please by all means, go ahead and SHOW us this scientific theory of ID. (And TRY to do better than “something intelligent did … um … something intelligent”).

Alas, our fundie friend seems to have done what *every* IDer does when asked to put up or shut up — they shut up.

Comment #120067

Posted by Robert O'Brien on August 16, 2006 6:49 PM (e)

Lenny wrote:

Well, Mr O’Brien, since you’re apparently a linguistic genius, you do, I presume, have the capability to determine what name Arab Muslims use to refer to god, and what name Arab Christians use to refer to god ….

Ever wonder why they’re, uh, the same?

No more than I wonder why the Ugaritic name for God (El, which is a cognate of Allah) is in the Bible.

Comment #120130

Posted by Anonymous_Coward on August 17, 2006 3:22 AM (e)

Alas, our fundie friend seems to have done what *every* IDer does when asked to put up or shut up —- they shut up.

You’ve just been proven wrong. Robert O’Brien diverted.

When asked to put up or shut up… he diverted.

Comment #120630

Posted by Henry J on August 18, 2006 11:18 PM (e)

So, is that like one of those cryptoquote puzzles in the newspaper?

Henry

Comment #134890

Posted by Sounder on September 27, 2006 9:58 PM (e)

Are these spambots or a very bored creationist?

Comment #141618

Posted by Redtri7 on October 26, 2006 2:10 PM (e)

yeah turkey!