Tara Smith posted Entry 2609 on September 29, 2006 10:10 AM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/2603

Via Dean and Science, Just Science comes this story about a new group trying to get ID into class in the UK:

Parents are being encouraged to challenge their children’s science teachers over what they are explaining as the origins of life.

An organisation called Truth in Science has also sent resource packs to all UK secondary school science departments.

It promotes the idea of intelligent design - that there was an intelligence behind the creation of the universe.

On their website, Truth in Science notes that they’ve already sent “ a mailing to all Secondary School and College Heads of Science in the United Kingdom.” Busy little bees, aren’t they?

And boy, doesn’t this sound familiar:

It quotes the Edexcel examining board as explaining that students “need to adopt a critical, questioning frame of mind, going ‘behind the scenes’ to understand the workings of science and how it impacts on society and their lives”.

The Truth in Science website says: “We consider that it is time for students to be permitted to adopt a critical approach to Darwinism in science lessons.”

Something sure has evolved: the anti-evolution catchphrase. “Critical analysis” and its kin are obviously being positively selected!

(Continued at Aetiology).

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 #135545

Posted by matthew on September 29, 2006 10:06 AM (e)

“Critical analysis”

Help help! I’m drowning in irony!!!!

Ahhhhhhh!

Comment #135550

Posted by Dean Morrison on September 29, 2006 10:32 AM (e)

Thanks for getting this up so quickly Tara - any suggestions gratefully received American chums :)

Comment #135556

Posted by Dean Morrison on September 29, 2006 10:51 AM (e)

Lots of detailed background on the organisation on the ‘Blackshadow of Creationism’ site:

http://www.blackshadow.me.uk/index.php/Main/TruthInScience

Comment #135571

Posted by Flint on September 29, 2006 11:19 AM (e)

The challenge, at least in the US but maybe in the UK as well, is to design code phrases that will make it stone obvious to religious congregations that we’re importing Jeezus into science classes, while sumultaneously disguising this intent from courts so thoroughly that judges won’t be able to notice. The good news is that judges tend to be a bit more insightful and perspicacious than congregations. The bad news is, judges tend to assume words have traditional meanings, while congregations understand that words mean whatever they SAY words mean.

Comment #135579

Posted by Glen Davidson on September 29, 2006 11:34 AM (e)

I think that “critical” must be meant in the vulgar sense, that is, they mean simply to bad-mouth evolution. Anyway, I’ve never seen anything from them that rose above mere put-downs of good science (the real critical analyses of shaky evolutionary ideas never come from IDists, as far as I can tell).

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Comment #135584

Posted by Fross on September 29, 2006 11:35 AM (e)

this must be some form of convergent evolution, but haven’t you noticed that most conspiracy, pseudo science groups always have the word “Truth” in their title?

Type in “truth” and “organization” in google, and you can see what I mean.

Comment #135591

Posted by bjm on September 29, 2006 11:51 AM (e)

The fact that it’s Truth - with a capital ‘T’ kinda gives the game away?

Comment #135601

Posted by Peter Henderson on September 29, 2006 12:08 PM (e)

When you say “sounds familiar”, I assume you are thinking of this Tara:

“evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. The material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”

Comment #135608

Posted by Tara on September 29, 2006 12:13 PM (e)

That, and Ohio’s “critical analysis” language, and similar phrases elsewhere.

Comment #135655

Posted by Tim Hague on September 29, 2006 1:31 PM (e)

Thanks from yet another SJS member for putting this up Tara. Here’s a link to the main Science Just Science site. We encourage all concerned UK residents to sign our petition, it only takes a few seconds :)

Comment #135688

Posted by Alexander Vargas on September 29, 2006 2:40 PM (e)

bah… I thought, with such “bright” folks as dawkins, the brits were all safe from ID (chuckle)

Comment #135700

Posted by stevaroni on September 29, 2006 3:09 PM (e)

I can’t stop thinking that this whole battle would be so much easier if “theory” didn’t have two meanings.

Is it any easier in other languages, where “Theory” of Evolution can’t be conflated with “good guess”?

Comment #135706

Posted by Flint on September 29, 2006 3:20 PM (e)

stevaroni:

Is it any easier in other languages, where “Theory” of Evolution can’t be conflated with “good guess”?

Isn’t it being conflated with “wrong guess” instead?

Comment #135707

Posted by Steviepinhead on September 29, 2006 3:23 PM (e)

Enjoy your vowels while you still can, lxndr, you blvtng trll.

Chuckle.

Comment #135715

Posted by stevaroni on September 29, 2006 3:39 PM (e)

I mean the “theory” part.

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard “It’s only a theory”, where the word theory is used implied to mean nothing more than “good guess”.

Comment #135716

Posted by Clastito on September 29, 2006 3:41 PM (e)

I mean, if you have this guy Dawkins constantly saying that evolution somehow implies there is no god, you are asking for the religious people to take it against evolution. Then this bloke blames everyone not joining the war againts religion, of being either religious or cowering in the closet. Dawkins and friends do not have the capacity to see it any other way than in this simplistic fashion.
Of course, there are us atheists who think science will never prove or disporove god. We don’t give religion that much credit nor do we blame it for all our problems. Neither do we think world peace and well being will just flow over the brim by praising science and reason. But to Dawkins, I guess we must just have some physiological problem of unreason. Yeah, there you go. A perfectly simplistic explanation. Dawkins style.
Dawkins lives from perpetuating a XIXth century debate, with no innovations. In the end, it is STILL is ALL about religion, isn’t it. Which is quite sad.
I guess the fact that anglo culture comes from a deeply religious and purist background has nothing to do with this, huh? Sure,some say it only continues to bes o in the US…but could it be, my british buddies, that it si still there, sleeping under the surface, ready to make a comeback?

Comment #135720

Posted by Frank J on September 29, 2006 3:49 PM (e)

The first thing I would recommend about critically analyzing “Darwinism” is to pay close attention to how often, and misleadingly, the word is used by anti-evolution activists who know that there is no alternate theory, but want students to think there is.

Comment #135727

Posted by Clastito on September 29, 2006 4:09 PM (e)

Darwinism is the idea that evolution is mainly directed by natural selection. This propostion has been for a long time debated within proper scientific discussion. What is not debated is common descent, of course. Interestingly, those academics most bent on attacking relgion using evolution as a banner, also happen to be “ultradarwinians” ( term used by Gould, Lewontin) such as the british Dennet and Dawkins, and the american? EO Wilson. Now of course, this feeds the very grave confusion of “criticizing darwinisn” with “criticizing evolution” , which has ben denounced several times here at the PT…only to see the same confusion pop up over and over again (as is the case of Frank J here who thinks there is no alternative to darwinism).

Comment #135730

Posted by jeffw on September 29, 2006 4:15 PM (e)

I guess the fact that anglo culture comes from a deeply religious and purist background has nothing to do with this, huh? Sure,some say it only continues to bes o in the US…but could it be, my british buddies, that it si still there, sleeping under the surface, ready to make a comeback?

You mean like a harmful recessive gene waiting to be expressed? Nah, I think (as do Dawkins and others) that it’s high time our species evolved beyond that nonsense.

Comment #135734

Posted by Clastito on September 29, 2006 4:22 PM (e)

Guys saying that it is time for humanity to step into the enlightened age of reason peace and progress brought on by science alone have existed since the XIXth century… science has actually made a lot of progress since then…yet the wonderful times of peace and enlightment, alas, has not yet arrived. Just saying “science should do it” seems to be not helping very much… isn’t it (chuckle)
I myself believe that before stepping inot such enlightmente, some social and economic problems should be dealt with… rather than just sit and wait for science to just solve it all….

Comment #135736

Posted by guthrie on September 29, 2006 4:25 PM (e)

“I guess the fact that anglo culture comes from a deeply religious and purist background has nothing to do with this, huh? Sure,some say it only continues to bes o in the US…but could it be, my british buddies, that it si still there, sleeping under the surface, ready to make a comeback?”

No, I dont think so. Religious expression in the UK has varied hugely over the past 20 generations, I see no signs that it is experiencing a rennaisance. Sure, the more virulent strains make a lot of noise, but on the whole there is little to no danger.

Comment #135737

Posted by guthrie on September 29, 2006 4:30 PM (e)

The [insert expletive here] have got a special section on Scotland!
This means war!

And they’ve our good friend Prof Macintosh on board:
“Andy McIntosh
Professor of Thermodynamics and Combustion Theory at the University of Leeds and author of over 100 research papers. Prof. McIntosh’s research includes biomimetics where natural mechanisms are studied with a view to using them for engineering applications. He has written numerous articles concerning the debate over Origins.”

He’s the prof of thermodynamics who is a creationist. Note how they are talking up his credentials and work etc.

Comment #135742

Posted by Steviepinhead on September 29, 2006 4:44 PM (e)

Clastito, let’s get past this boring old Dawkins==>evolution==>atheism canard and get down to the real issue:

Are you pro-gerbil* or not? Be a man, take a stand!**

____________
*Spread the word: End A War! Save A Gerbil!

**Bumperstickers available shortly.

Comment #135760

Posted by Michael Roberts on September 29, 2006 4:58 PM (e)

Have you read McIntosh’s twisting of geology in his “Genesis for Today”, it verges on the dishonest

Comment #135789

Posted by Corkscrew on September 29, 2006 5:35 PM (e)

science has actually made a lot of progress since then…yet the wonderful times of peace and enlightment, alas, has not yet arrived.

We’re all alive, aren’t we? Do you have any idea what the child mortality rates were back then? Do you have any idea how young people died? Do you have any idea of the conditions that people had to work in, lacking as they did modern machinery?

Ingrate!

Comment #135790

Posted by Clastito on September 29, 2006 5:38 PM (e)

Just…be warned

Comment #135795

Posted by Clastito on September 29, 2006 5:46 PM (e)

Do you have any idea what the child mortality IS in the thrid world? Do you have any idea how many young people die? Do you have any idea of the conditions that people have to work in, modern machinery or not?
You burgeois bubbleboy… can‘t trust people who have never had a dcent revolution or killed a despot monarch, I’m telling ya (hehehe)

Comment #135797

Posted by Corkscrew on September 29, 2006 5:47 PM (e)

Just…be warned

Oh, we’re warned all right. The lunatics are trying to take over the asylum again. Luckily, the vast majority of UK Christians actually have a clue (nods to Ekklesia), so the creationists are going to find it an uphill struggle at best. They’ve probably got the funding to climb that hill, but it’ll take time - so much for the element of surprise.

Comment #135800

Posted by Clastito on September 29, 2006 5:54 PM (e)

Do you have any idea what the child mortality IS in the thrid world? Do you have any idea how many young people die? Do you have any idea of the conditions that people have to work in, (with plenty of modern machinery, by the way)
You burgeois bubbleboy… can’t trust people who have never had a decent social revolution (hehehe)
The modern machinery part is specially funny….like if labor abuse had been eliminated by industralization…
Most of the beter conditiosn stemmed from social movements, You see the bosse were not very much into the theory of being nice to the workers as you may think

Comment #135807

Posted by Alexander Vargas on September 29, 2006 6:03 PM (e)

Seems to me all UK chrsitians need is a bit more of US propaganda to feel like maybe hopping onto “the new science” hehehe
But hey, also other european countries, if that makes you feel better.
Except France , of course (OUCH!!! hahaha)

Comment #135810

Posted by Corkscrew on September 29, 2006 6:09 PM (e)

Do you have any idea what the child mortality IS in the thrid world? Do you have any idea how many young people die? Do you have any idea of the conditions that people have to work in, (with plenty of modern machinery, by the way)

Of course I know - obviously science is no use if you don’t have the cash or the leadership to put its conclusions into practice. And if you want to experience a world without science, feel free to head out into some of those African countries. However, you’ll have to head quite deep - even in the rather unpleasant Saharan areas, you’ll find things like chemical spraying to cut down mosquito numbers.

Even in the midst of abject poverty, even in warzones, you’ll still find science and its products, because they have such great potential to improve people’s standard of living.

Comment #135819

Posted by Clastito on September 29, 2006 6:19 PM (e)

Yes of course. But you see, just hailing science is wortheless, if we do not realize how economy, politics, and interests are an unavoidable part of this too…war included. Yeah Science can do great things, when it comes to figuring out how to kill others, too. The biggest business of ALL!!! I kid you not. O yeah, and you have the role of science in everso many new frivolous ways of spending money while others starve, new ways of contaminating the environment, and so on.
So lets not get into frivolous “science worshipping” please.. even a defintion of health shpuld include psychologicla wel being, etc.
just naked “scientism” is only a source os stupidity, of simplistic wishful thinkig thinking… quite in vogue, I am afraid.

Comment #135820

Posted by Steviepinhead on September 29, 2006 6:21 PM (e)

ps! Cdn’t qt ndrstnd wht y wr trng t sy thr, vrgs.

Myb y shld spk ldr.

R jst tr mkng sns fr chng.

Comment #135821

Posted by Steviepinhead on September 29, 2006 6:27 PM (e)

Clastito:

everso
defintion
shpuld
psychologicla
wel
os
thinkig
quite in vogue, I am afraid.

Unlike, apparently, spelling.

Comment #135825

Posted by guthrie on September 29, 2006 6:39 PM (e)

Clastito, once you’ve finished the sermon, do you want to say something useful?

Comment #135851

Posted by Torbjörn Larsson on September 29, 2006 7:27 PM (e)

Now would be a good time to put over that “scientific critical analysis” is a critical part of usual science (peer review, market of ideas) and that “critical analysis of science” is a critical part of funding science.

I see that this is so important that even the famous lxndr Vrgs has taken an interest. Or perhaps he is looking for his vowels.

stevaroni:
Perhaps it is universal, at least it is as hard in swedish. A theory is “en teori”, and a good guess is “en teori”.

This would also be timely to put over. Perhaps a simple evo/creo dictionary would be a start?

Evolution
*Creationism
**Meaning

scientific (critical) analysis
*-
**peer review, market of ideas, ethics commitees

(critical) analysis of science
*critical analysis
**reviewing funding, reviewing etics commitees

theory
*-
**selfconsistent and falsifiable framework

hypothesis
*-
**testable part of a framework

-
*theory
**guess

evolution
*-
**the observed fact of common descent, and the theory that explains it, with many mechanisms

-
*darwinism
**strawman with one erroneously described mechanism, ‘dogma’, ‘atheism’

microevolution
*-
**evolution under species level

-
*microevolution
**evolution accepted by creationists

macroevolution
*-
**evolution over species level

-
*macroevolution
**evolution not accepted by creationists

Comment #135860

Posted by Clastito on September 29, 2006 8:00 PM (e)

As the Quixote said, “let the dogs bark, Sancho, it just means we are making way” . Some dogs are even talking in tongues over here hahaha
Something useful? Sure. To start with, a baby step.
“Science” just for the sake of “Science” “reason” just or the sake of “reason” is quite a pointless thing to defend, since both can be put to anything. So, science is great, sure, but what we need to ask is , science for the sake of WHAT?

Comment #135871

Posted by GvlGeologist, FCD on September 29, 2006 8:33 PM (e)

I for one would like to find a universally accepted definition of the word “theory” as used by scientists. Torbjörn, I think your definition is a bit incomplete. When I teach (freshman and sophomore level) earth and physical science classes, my definition is simply

a well-tested hypothesis tentatively accepted by concensus among the scientific public

which certainly agrees with what most of us think of when we use the “theory” of evolution, the atom, gravity, relativity, etc. But at the National Academy of Sciences (http://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/), they use

Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses. The contention that evolution should be taught as a “theory, not as a fact” confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.

This definition certainly encompasses my definition, but expands on it. Certainly, much of the non-scientific public doesn’t understand that relatively narrowly defined meaning. Since we’re commenting on the definition of misunderstood (and intentionally misused) science words in common useage, would anyone else like to comment on the definition of “theory”?

Of course, the CreatIDsts will use words (and anything else that they can) in any way they can get away with that furthers their cause, but I think it’s incumbent upon us to use language correctly, but also to get these concepts across to the public at large.

(by the way, loved your other defs.)

Comment #135882

Posted by Torbjörn Larsson on September 29, 2006 9:28 PM (e)

Gvl:
The list was intended as a quick, short and somewhat humorus list of rudimentary definitions. I am myself of the opinion that it doesn’t seem to be easy to describe science and its methods. (One of my pet peeves is when people conflate it to ‘inductive logic’. It is sooo 19th century.) I nicked an attempt to description of theory from wikipedia and compressed it as much as possible.

I deliberately held back on the “well-tested” part, both since wikipedia does that, and since people argue over what tested means and if it is necessary here. String theory is described by most as a nontested theory, by some as theoretically tested theory (is consistent with QFTs, relativity, black hole entropy, AdS/CFT, et cetera), and by a few as a proto-theory.

I have yet to see a reasonable definition of a theory and the demarcation rules. That said any scientist recognises what is science in her area when doing science, and perhaps a general framing description may be easy enough. I welcome any attempts.

As you can see Clastito conversely complains about me making the list at all. I don’t blame him - pulling down the drawers of creos immediately expose their shortcomings. Creationism is sterile - it is the eunuch of dogmas.

Comment #135886

Posted by Torbjörn Larsson on September 29, 2006 9:45 PM (e)

“It is sooo 19th century.”

Or 18th. Or 20th. Too old to have street cred anyway.

Comment #135887

Posted by Clastito on September 29, 2006 9:48 PM (e)

Hmmm…? I haven’t complained of any definitons.
I thought that was some boring parallel discussion.
If you are not into scientism “a la dawkins”, sympathizers will accuse you of being religious or cowering in the closet, as I said above. So Larsson just decided to slap a creationist label on me? How original. Predictable like religious fundies. Whatever makes you feel safe, Larsson.

Comment #135899

Posted by Torbjörn Larsson on September 29, 2006 10:21 PM (e)

Clastito:
You complained about the list, and it is a serious attempt to push for science to take the lead and clarify what ‘critical analysis’ means before it gets an official meaning.

As the much more eminent doctor House I tend to get bored with the usual trivia cases and do a quick hip shot analysis of symptoms from the last comment.

Let’s see all comments then.
“this guy Dawkins”: - 1
“us atheists”: + 1
“confusion of “criticizing darwinisn” with “criticizing evolution””: + 10
“who thinks there is no alternative to darwinism”: +10
“science worshipping” -10
“scientism” -10
““Science”” - 100

=> - 100.

Sorry, I’m not convinced a weighted ‘differential diagnosis’ gives any new result. Maybe I’m reading too much anti-science into your comments, and I need to make apologies. But if so maybe you need to restate them clearly first. What do you mean by Dawkins ‘scientism’ and “Science”?

Comment #135905

Posted by Torbjörn Larsson on September 29, 2006 10:34 PM (e)

Clastito:
TP is intermittent and I need to sleep. To avoid any delayed bad feelings I apologize carte blanche for my hasty judgement.

Instead I want comment that Dawkins is agnostic on science AFAIK, and his dismissal of religion is based on its track record and other stuff. As Stevepinhead says you repeat an old canard, which mostly seems to come from creationists otherwise. Just saying.

Comment #135907

Posted by Clastito on September 29, 2006 10:42 PM (e)

Larsson, you’re deluded. Please indicate where did I complain about your definitions.
I am not antiscience. You have no idea how close I am to science. The point is I hate to see science transformed into some stupid ideology by a bunch of amateurs and rotten apples.
You just don’t want to think about what I am saying because it doesn’t look good for you ways, I guess. That is an entirely different matter. Try to say something actually relevant to the points I bring up.

Comment #135908

Posted by Clastito on September 29, 2006 10:45 PM (e)

Larsson, you’re deluded. Please indicate where did I complain about your definitions.
I am not antiscience. You have no idea how close I am to science. The point is I hate to see science transformed into some stupid ideology by a bunch of amateurs and rotten apples.
You just don’t want to think about what I am saying because it doesn’t look good for you ways, I guess. That is an entirely different matter. Try to say something actually relevant to the points I bring up.

Comment #136038

Posted by guthrie on September 30, 2006 5:09 AM (e)

Ahhh, obsessives are so much fun, arent they?

Something useful? Sure. To start with, a baby step.
“Science” just for the sake of “Science” “reason” just or the sake of “reason” is quite a pointless thing to defend, since both can be put to anything. So, science is great, sure, but what we need to ask is , science for the sake of WHAT?

Science for th sake of what? Who are you talking to? You want to ask everyone that quesdtion. Thus far, science (Or rather the results of scientific endeavours) has been used for improvements ni public health, food production, increases in production of material goods, and so on. Do you want the general populace to have some control over the uses of scientific results? Or do you wish to restrict areas of research?

Either way, we are into politics, not science. So, please explain your politics, rather than moaning about people, that way we can get at your value system and assumptions and actually have a proper debate.

The point is I hate to see science transformed into some stupid ideology by a bunch of amateurs and rotten apples.

And these individuals are? And can you explain how they are that much more dangerous that creationists and others, who are after all the topic of this thread. And can you explain how you are not blatantly insulting everyone on here by this general sweeping statement?

Communications 101- do not make sweepign statements that can be misinterprested, and avoid engimatic statements.

Wheres k.e. when you need him?

Comment #136158

Posted by Clastito on September 30, 2006 10:26 AM (e)

“Thus far, science (Or rather the results of scientific endeavours) has been used for improvements ni public health, food production, increases in production of material goods, and so on.”

Certainly so, but this contrast even more with current poverty and bad life conditiosn, not to mention war, unjustice and other points that we cannot expect to solve without actually thinking about this, as if this were to happen as a mere, effortless by-product of scientific advancement.

“Do you want the general populace to have some control over the uses of scientific results? Or do you wish to restrict areas of research?”
Actually, no. Of course I wish less research were dedicated to making lethal weapons and more was done , for instance, about natural history, ecology. I want problems taken care of with responsibility, rather comofort ourselves in that the science-enlightened future “will come” and all we need to do is merely hail to science. Notice that hails to science and reason can be made by anyone, not only Dawkins, but the pope, creationsist. The more they hail rational thinking, the less likely they are actually doing any of it. This is my point. hailing to science and reason is vacuous and unnecessary adornment, yet some poeple think that’s the solution.

(The point is I hate to see science transformed into some stupid ideology by a bunch of amateurs and rotten apples)

“And these individuals are?”

Anyone who feels identified, to start with.
Dennet, is not a researcher, and thus as science goes, he is an amateur.
Dawkins, is not that hot an evolutionary biologist as some would want him to be (specially to counter the plenty simplism and ignorance he spews on social issues) He has become a cultural warrior, engrossed with fighting in the creationist muck, for quite a long time now.
Of couse, some practicing scientists, can be very smug and like to claim some kind of ultimate superiority or even “defend the job”. This is humanly understandable since they may carry out very difficult feats and are really hard-working and don’t give much thought at all to social issues. Fortunately, very few working, practicing scinetists spend any time promoting scientism, even if they sympathize.

“And can you explain how they are that much more dangerous that creationists and others, who are after all the topic of this thread”

They are not truly dangerous, nor are creationists. They both are just useless, self-comforting and obnoxious.

“And can you explain how you are not blatantly insulting everyone on here by this general sweeping statement?”

I would hate to think everyone over here is into scientism “a la Dawkins”. If that is the case, you should have no problem getting me banned. Open-mindedness is upheld from the mouth outwards by this kind of people but in fact they are very dogmatic. All they need to do is say that “reason” is on their side, to squash anything… “unreasonable” (that is, that they do not like)

Comment #136194

Posted by Peter Henderson on September 30, 2006 12:12 PM (e)

This was on the AIG website today:

BBC: New challenge over school science

“Truth in Science,” a new British organization, is aiming to promote better origins education in UK schools. Unsurprisingly, evolutionists are responding negatively, referring to the movement as “superstition.”

One of the scientists behind the project is Dr. Andy McIntosh, author of Genesis for Today. We hope and pray that efforts such as this enlighten students to the fact that not all scientists agree that millions of years of evolution is responsible for life—despite what they may be taught in the classroom.

Comment #136212

Posted by Mong H Tan, PhD on September 30, 2006 1:26 PM (e)

Hello, Everybody, Mind, and Spirit! :)

How ironic: Only Clastito who could see that the Oxford’s Emperor in Darwinism—Richard Dawkins—actually has no clothes!

Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter—just a food for thought, from a self-introspective Darwinist evolutionist perspective. Happy reading, thinking, scrutinizing, and enlightening! :)

Best wishes, Mong 9/30/6usct1:24p; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now; a cyberspace hermit-philosopher of Modern Mind, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.

Comment #136214

Posted by Anton Mates on September 30, 2006 1:36 PM (e)

Clastito wrote:

Interestingly, those academics most bent on attacking relgion using evolution as a banner, also happen to be “ultradarwinians” ( term used by Gould, Lewontin) such as the british Dennet and Dawkins, and the american? EO Wilson.

No, not at all. E.O. Wilson just wrote this book, for example, which is specifically aimed at befriending conservative believers. I don’t find the adaptationist viewpoint a very compelling one myself, but there’s no inherent connection between adaptationism and hostility to religion. (Especially within evolutionary biologists themselves–as you mention, Dawkins isn’t one so he hardly counts there.)

Nor did Gould, for instance, believe there was. Remember how he describes Wallace’s “ultra-darwinian” argument for theistic evolution?

And, in passing, just as everyone else has mentioned, Dawkins doesn’t use evolution to attack religion. He uses evolution to attack the design argument–incorrectly, I think, but whatever–and acknowledges that other reasons for belief are unaffected. Sure, he also attacks religion all the time, but for reasons unconnected to evolutionary theory.

Dennett’s about the only guy I can think of who could legitimately be described as “attacking religion using evolution as a banner,” in that he really does seem to think that acceptance of evolution would completely revolutionize science, philosophy and religion. But he’s not even a scientist.

Comment #136227

Posted by Clastito on September 30, 2006 2:20 PM (e)

Mong, thanks, but reduce the self-propaganda and the whimsical guru expressions. I’m here to be everyone’s pain in the butt, you too (hahaha).
The connection between darwinian adaptationism and the attack on religion is all within the predominantly UK functionalist tradition of thought. That connection is the concept of “optimization” or “perfect adaptation” with two alternative explanations: 1) The intelligent design argument, by Paley’s natural theology 2) Darwins alternative: increasing “better” adaptation through the competitive survival of the fittest. For those that agree that “perfect adaptation” is THE true problem, the only alternative to god is that adaptation perfects itself through natural selection. hence the connection of atheism and ultradarwinism: they both accept optimization, adaptionism, and a dichotomy to explain it, either God or natural selection. It’s pretty clear.

Now, Wilson thinks the same way Dawkins does. He is a naïve empiricist, ultrapositivist let’s say (a natural correlate of scientism), of the kind that says, just show me the evidence, and I would believe in god. He accepts the basic notion that science could prove god exists (which I dissagree, as I said above) and then points to biology, to say that evolution has removed any evidence for the existence of god coming from Biology. Both Dawkisn and Wilson are in fact “provisional”, they admit science may show a god exists but say there “just is no evidence”. The only difference between them, is that Wislosn says that there is no evidence for god in biology but wonders, rather stupidly from an epistemological point of view, that maybe physics will provide that evidence. Yeah, Wilson, maybe the smallest particles have “made by god” written on them (chuckle). So, both admit god may exist, only Dawkins does not entertain the idea that evidence will actually show up as much as Wilson.
With a teeny tiny more room for philosophical sophistication beyond such ultrapositivist scientism, it is quite easy to see that all of this is actually quite silly, and that science will never provide evidence that god exists, nor refute the existence of god, an entity defined as supernatural.

Comment #136230

Posted by Mong H Tan, PhD on September 30, 2006 3:06 PM (e)

Hello, Everybody, Mind, and Spirit! :)

Anton Mates said: Dennett’s about the only guy I can think of who could legitimately be described as “attacking religion using evolution as a banner,” in that he really does seem to think that acceptance of evolution would completely revolutionize science, philosophy and religion. But he’s not even a scientist.

Wrong: Dennett—the Tufts armchair philosopher (not a scientist)—is only a blind, faithful disciple of Dawkinsian Scientism or Evolutionism of the 2 myths: the selfish gene and the hopping meme, that Dawkins has had been propagating in The Selfish Gene, since 1976—gloriously and utterly without any self-reflection or introspection whatsoever, a typical imperial mentality?!

Their latest anti-Religionism propaganda—in Breaking the Spell (Dennett) and The God Delusion (Dawkins)—have had been their lazy-intellectual derivatives of their Evolutionism since the 1990s!

On this issue, I’ve had commented here, Wells: “Darwinism is doomed” because we keep making progress (ScienceBlogsUSA; September 27); and elsewhere since April 2006—please see the links listed in my simple blog below.

Post script: Clastito, thanks for your kind words! Although we may come from different viewpoints, Dawkins is definitely out running naked again—chuckle! :)

Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter—just a food for thought, from a self-introspective Darwinist evolutionist perspective. Happy reading, thinking, scrutinizing, and enlightening! :)

Best wishes, Mong 9/30/6usct3:05p; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now; a cyberspace hermit-philosopher of Modern Mind, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.

Comment #136272

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on September 30, 2006 5:57 PM (e)

Why have all the incoherent nutters suddenly descended upon us?

Comment #136274

Posted by bjm on September 30, 2006 6:04 PM (e)

Because they can!

OT - I’ve just started reading Dawkin’s new book and its now hurting my neck as I keep nodding in agreement with everything I read.

Comment #136278

Posted by Anton Mates on September 30, 2006 6:06 PM (e)

Clastito wrote:

The connection between darwinian adaptationism and the attack on religion is all within the predominantly UK functionalist tradition of thought.

Dennett’s American.

That connection is the concept of “optimization” or “perfect adaptation” with two alternative explanations: 1) The intelligent design argument, by Paley’s natural theology 2) Darwins alternative: increasing “better” adaptation through the competitive survival of the fittest. For those that agree that “perfect adaptation” is THE true problem, the only alternative to god is that adaptation perfects itself through natural selection. hence the connection of atheism and ultradarwinism: they both accept optimization, adaptionism, and a dichotomy to explain it, either God or natural selection. It’s pretty clear.

Except that some adaptationists (like Wallace) use God and natural selection as explanations, applying the former where the latter doesn’t work, and some (like Wilson) don’t use God to explain perfect adaptations at all but still recognize the possibilty of God’s existence on other grounds. Wilson, after all, is a self-styled “provisional deist.”

Really, it seems like you’ve just got Dennett and Dawkins, two friends who happen to be atheists, adaptationists, and hostile to religion, and aren’t evolutionary biologists. That hardly adds up to an Adaptationist War on Religion.

Comment #136281

Posted by Anton Mates on September 30, 2006 6:10 PM (e)

Mong H Tan, PhD wrote:

Anton Mates said: Dennett’s about the only guy I can think of who could legitimately be described as “attacking religion using evolution as a banner,” in that he really does seem to think that acceptance of evolution would completely revolutionize science, philosophy and religion. But he’s not even a scientist.

Wrong: Dennett—the Tufts armchair philosopher (not a scientist)—is only a blind, faithful disciple of Dawkinsian Scientism or Evolutionism of the 2 myths: the selfish gene and the hopping meme, that Dawkins has had been propagating in The Selfish Gene, since 1976—gloriously and utterly without any self-reflection or introspection whatsoever, a typical imperial mentality?!

I’m sorry? I’m not sure your reply even connects to what I wrote, much less rebuts it.

Comment #136320

Posted by guthrie on September 30, 2006 7:21 PM (e)

*does a jenny geddes*

Ok clastito, lets see.
You’ve wondered into a thread, and started mouthing off about how your worried that people are imbibing scientism, and using science as religion etc. Eventually you name Dawkins et al, and engage in the usual dawknis bashing, which is quite popular.

What this has to do with the thread is not entirely clear. You certainly seem worried that we are into scientism, but clearly know so little about the place that you end your sermon by saying

I would hate to think everyone over here is into scientism “a la Dawkins”. If that is the case, you should have no problem getting me banned.

You clearly have no idea about this place. Would you like to go out, and come back in again when you are ready for sensible conversation?

Comment #136394

Posted by Torbjörn Larsson on October 1, 2006 12:30 AM (e)

Clastito:
“Larsson, you’re deluded. Please indicate where did I complain about your definitions. “

You said:
“Something useful? Sure. To start with, a baby step.
“Science” just for the sake of “Science” “reason” just or the sake of “reason” is quite a pointless thing to defend, since both can be put to anything. So, science is great, sure, but what we need to ask is , science for the sake of WHAT?”

“The point is I hate to see science transformed into some stupid ideology by a bunch of amateurs and rotten apples.”

If you hide behind a handle nobody will take that claim seriously. (Regards the science pissing contest, you can currently find my work by adding “sputtering” at google scholar. Your turn.)

You have still not explained how Dawkins’ view is scientism. Dawkins is agnostic regarding science: “We cannot prove that there is no God, but we can safely conclude the He is very, very improbable indeed.” ( http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1994-12religion.shtml ) It seems his atheism has other sources.

Comment #136398

Posted by Clastito on October 1, 2006 12:47 AM (e)

Almost pure barking. Irrelevant criticisms and mutual reassurances. Just the expected behaviour of those who like moving in herds. No arguments there, and thus, no answers required.

Anton,
I’m not saying that adaptationism is about a war against religion, but a conceptual link can indeed be found. “Perfect adaptation” was once considered the most clear signal of the intelligence of god…which darwin explained alternatively, through the perfecting and increase of adaptation by the means of natural selection.
Now, you don’t have to go too far to find, that there is indeed something very fishy about adaptationism. We can leave the refutation of adaptationism to Gould and Lewontin… though I think they were not nearly hard enough!

Comment #136399

Posted by Clastito on October 1, 2006 12:50 AM (e)

Larsson, if you knew what scientism was, you’d know Dawkins is the best representative you could ever pick.

Comment #136410

Posted by Torbjörn Larsson on October 1, 2006 3:07 AM (e)

Clastito:

“Scientism is an ideology which holds that science has primacy over other interpretations of life (e.g., religious, mythical, spiritual, or humanistic explanations).” (Wikipedia.)

I repeat: Dawkins is (secondarily) agnostic from science, yet (primarily) atheist from other sources, as seen from earlier citation. This immediately refutes your claim.

As noted by Stevepinhead, you are really trying to claim “this boring old Dawkins==>evolution==>atheism canard”. But you can’t make your argument go through.

Comment #136495

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 1, 2006 10:01 AM (e)

I’m curious, Clastito — are you a “commie”?

I ask that in all seriousness.

And do you know the difference between “science” and “the social uses to which scientific knowledge is put”?

I ask that in all seriousness, too.

Comment #136502

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 1, 2006 10:09 AM (e)

As noted by Stevepinhead, you are really trying to claim “this boring old Dawkins==>evolution==>atheism canard”. But you can’t make your argument go through.

No, I think he is making an entirely different argument — one that I heard before, long ago, at a Socialist Scholars Conference in New York.

It goes something like:

capitalism —> “immutable laws run the world” —> science —> anti-leftism

As an argument, it fails to distinguish between “science” and “the social and political uses to which science is put”.

Comment #136548

Posted by guthrie on October 1, 2006 3:42 PM (e)

Thats a hypothesis worth testing lennie. Now will the subject hang around long enough to test it properly?

Their posts do remind me of a poster at Ben Goldacreas bad science forum, who says nothing about science, but perpetually moans about the misuses and human foibles of scientists. They are very close to that idea that you have suggested. But I dont think clastito is them, the writing style is too different.

Comment #136552

Posted by Dean Morrison on October 1, 2006 4:22 PM (e)

Why have all the incoherent nutters suddenly descended upon us?

Mong Tang is also a Troll who pooped up on Ben Goldacre’s Bad Science forum trying to flog his bleedin’ book.

He eventually effed off when we ignored him (or perhaps it was a ban - if so was well deserved)..

Comment #136559

Posted by Clastito on October 1, 2006 5:00 PM (e)

The fact that I do not feel the impulse to repeatedly cry hails to science does not mean I have a mug with Che Guevara’s face on it. I aim only to push the intellectual rigor up a notch, beyond congratulating ourselves all the time just because we repeat and thump the table that “we must be scientific”… and then feel so goddam right about it, that we ignore important issues that we actually need to think about, and start believing in a naïve scientism that turns us into something quite downright unscientific!!!

If I tell you that t by its own effortlessly bring the solutions to humanity’s problems, without major ethical and sociological adjustments as to HOW science and limited resources are actually put to use, you should try and think about this. That’s all. It’s about intellectual honesty, not about “being a commie”: Rev. Dr. Mc Arthy… “You see commie people”

And BTW, I am not at all into the kind of argument the you think Rev., of blaming darwinsim for capitalism and such…If anything, its the other way round. Capitalism has influenced biology into an “economical” framework of benefits, trade offs, and so. This indeed is much more historically accurate too. The flow was the other way round. And please note that by pointing this out, I am NOT disqualifying any biological notions on the basis of their possible origins.

One “lefty” thing I WILL say, though: You live in countries that have an upper hand in the world. With religious, “democratic” or “rationalist” banners of superiority, your leaders may continue stomping on the rest of the world as if it is their inborn right, and as long as they continue acumulating money and power for your countries, what are you going to say?
You can indulge in any cultural war or useless hobby you wish. If you yet remain well fed and payed, why care about wondering about how the troubles of the world fit or not into your comfy scientism?

And this is not about being lefty, or a “commie” at all!!! It’s about thinking things through with honesty.

Comment #136581

Posted by Clastito on October 1, 2006 6:45 PM (e)

By the way, you know that you are talking to a sectarian, when you say something they do not like, they immediately attempt a classification… “he’s a creationist” “a commie” “this troll” you know, to label and dismiss, without paying attention to actual arguments. Sooo predictable… you can’t figure me out, but I can figure many here, easily.

Comment #136604

Posted by Torbjörn Larsson on October 1, 2006 8:01 PM (e)

“I can figure many here, easily”

Sure you can. Like you figured me, for instance.

Comment #136612

Posted by Anton Mates on October 1, 2006 8:38 PM (e)

Clastito wrote:

I’m not saying that adaptationism is about a war against religion, but a conceptual link can indeed be found. “Perfect adaptation” was once considered the most clear signal of the intelligence of god…which darwin explained alternatively, through the perfecting and increase of adaptation by the means of natural selection.

Dawkins claims biological perfection of design was once considered the most compelling evidence for God, but I think he’s wrong there. Logically speaking the teleological argument was flawed from the get-go, and historically speaking I don’t think many people were ever moved to believe by Paley’s particular version. The first-cause argument was always more popular AFAIK, and of course most people weren’t primarily moved to belief by any logical argument at all. Dawkins is pretty unusual in being so struck by the perfection of adaptation, which I think is the root cause both of his former design-argument-based-theism and of his current adaptationism.

For others, there’s a link between adaptationism and support of theism or religion. Adaptationism, after all, essentially restricts the role of evolution by demanding that adaptations be almost perfectly suited to the environment. Imperfect adaptations, therefore (like the “unnecessary” mental abilities of early man), must be the product of some other process or entity–and for Wallace that meant God. I think many theistic evolutionists reason along the same lines; they deny that evolution could have produced altruism, language, etc. on adaptationist grounds and credit God with that instead.

Conversely, Gould takes his contingency-based viewpoint of evolution as arguing against a personal God, since life doesn’t appear to have developed along any predetermined divine plan…while Ken Miller thinks contingency assists Christian theism by allowing life to act freely and determine its own future.

IOW, you can find a conceptual link between almost any evolutionary viewpoint and almost any theological one–just find a scientist who held both and ask him.

Comment #136657

Posted by Clastito on October 1, 2006 11:18 PM (e)

Anton said

“Historically speaking I don’t think many people were ever moved to believe by Paley’s particular version. The first-cause argument was always more popular AFAIK (…) Dawkins is pretty unusual in being so struck by the perfection of adaptation, which I think is the root cause both of his former design-argument-based-theism and of his current adaptationism”

I think you underestimate the role of the “perfection of adaptation” argument. It is pretty popular: easy to chew and digest. Just watch any nature documentary…phrase fter phrase of adaptationism… it just so happens, “for this” adaptationist explanations can be grasped by anyone and used to come off as “knowledgeable”. Those things that are NOT adaptive… well they just don’t “make sense” that easily. They cannot be sold with the candy-like ease of adaptationism. How many times the concept of “spandrel” has ever been explained in a documentary? The concept of drift? Exaptation?
So, adaptationism is quite the popular referent… which is why you have Behe, using complex adaptations to argue intelligent design, and whoa, a bestselling book, if not a whole darn neocreationist movement…then you have Dawkins, the other great bestseller!! voted number 3-4 “intellectual” of the world, tackling the same old “problem” and providing the same old alternative explanation.

“For others, there’s a link between adaptationism and support of theism or religion. Adaptationism, after all, essentially restricts the role of evolution by demanding that adaptations be almost perfectly suited to the environment. Imperfect adaptations, therefore (like the “unnecessary” mental abilities of early man), must be the product of some other process or entity–and for Wallace that meant God. I think many theistic evolutionists reason along the same lines; they deny that evolution could have produced altruism, language, etc. on adaptationist grounds and credit God with that instead.”

This is interesting because it shows how upholding an ultradarwinian view of evolution as “THE scientific explanation”, when adaptationism fails to fit the data, as it frequently will, some roll their eyes to the skyes and believe there is no scientific explanation!!!!Very funny indeed, but I’m pretty sure even trained scientists have been drawn to “scientific theism” through this pathway. Scietims greatky contributes, since the attitude is “this has already beeen scietifically explained” so when something is shown to be in fact far more problematic than say a simplistic explanation in terms of selfish genes, whoa, some believers will sprout here and there. The “scientific explanation” was wrong! they’ll exclaim.

“Conversely, Gould takes his contingency-based viewpoint of evolution as arguing against a personal God, since life doesn’t appear to have developed along any predetermined divine plan…while Ken Miller thinks contingency assists Christian theism by allowing life to act freely and determine its own future”

Yes, isn’t that funny? When it comes to prove or disprove god, both sides shout eureka with the same data. Of course, this just shows that trying to refute or prove god with science is a failed attempt since even talking about god draws the discusion out of a truly scientific realm.

“IOW, you can find a conceptual link between almost any evolutionary viewpoint and almost any theological one–just find a scientist who held both and ask him.”

Yes but according to what I said above I do not think that what I pointed out is just an artefactual construction, but in fact a debate that has been so persistent, with no end in sight, it could even be actually used as an aspect characterizing angloamerican culture. Dare I say this relates to their well know pragmatism, too.

Comment #136665

Posted by jeffw on October 2, 2006 12:27 AM (e)

Man, this clastito guy babbles even worse the “dr” martin. Diarrhea of the mind. Must be troll week.

Good to see that Dawkins is having some effect. I keep agreeing with him more and more.

Comment #136749

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 2, 2006 7:15 AM (e)

It goes something like:

capitalism —> “immutable laws run the world” —> science —> anti-leftism

And BTW, I am not at all into the kind of argument the you think Rev., of blaming darwinsim for capitalism and such…If anything, its the other way round. Capitalism has influenced biology into an “economical” framework of benefits, trade offs, and so. This indeed is much more historically accurate too. The flow was the other way round.

Um reading comprehension problems, huh.

you can’t figure me out, but I can figure many here, easily.

I guess we’re just not as brilliant as you, huh.

Comment #136751

Posted by guthrie on October 2, 2006 7:22 AM (e)

WEll, lennie, looks like he has you bang to rights!

I still dont get his comments on scientism though. Labelling us all scientism worshippers without providing evidence is usually fairly poor tactics. Then moaning on how only those who agree with their labelling them like that have anything to worry about is just silly.

Anyway, a google on the name clastito turns up various posters who speak Spanish and appear to be paleontologists.

Comment #136765

Posted by Clastito on October 2, 2006 10:25 AM (e)

Rev, you got capitalism at one end…and antileftism at the other. I’d agree its a kind of “cyclical” thing, but unless you think all of this is crap, why did you call me a commie? What is your point?

Comment #136768

Posted by Clastito on October 2, 2006 11:06 AM (e)

On this very thread

“I’ve just started reading Dawkin’s new book and its now hurting my neck as I keep nodding in agreement with everything I read”.

“Good to see that Dawkins is having some effect. I keep agreeing with him more and more”

To agree so much with Dawkins means you are into scientism. It is easy to think this way. Therefore, Dawkins fans are abundant, always lurking… but rarely contributing with an actual argument. More like cheerleaders.

Comment #136769

Posted by Darth Robo on October 2, 2006 11:26 AM (e)

So Clastito, you think we should replace the teaching of evolution in our schools here in the uk with religious alternatives just to avoid what you view as ‘scientism’?

As Lenny said, the study of science is something different from the social uses to which it is put. It sounds like you should be having a go at the social aspects of society rather than the scientific ones, since that’s what seems to piss you off.

Comment #136781

Posted by bjm on October 2, 2006 12:48 PM (e)

Clastito

I’ve just read through some of your posts and I can honestly say I haven’t got a clue what you are going on about!

What is your point?

Comment #136804

Posted by guthrie on October 2, 2006 2:24 PM (e)

Humph, if I’d gotten to work a bit earlier, my post would have been before lennies, where it belongs.

Meanwhile, after complaining about the “truthiness in science” people on another forum, I flushed out 2 people of the “Science cannot prove anything” and “Views should be heard” kind of thinking. Which is entertaining, because one of them is well know for insulting people, and has a terrible online reputation for rabidly attacking people he disagrees with, even when he is wrong.

On the other hand, 5 or 6 people have basically agreed with me.
Meanwhile, the proponent of views keesp asking why creationism shouldnt be taught, having missed the multiple times I have suggested that it is lies.

Comment #136807

Posted by Clastito on October 2, 2006 3:20 PM (e)

There we go… thinly veiled, if at all, accusations of religiousness and creationsim, all over again. You guys certainly are masters in finding excuses to wave things away to not bother to think. Soo predictable. Stop it, and THINK!!!!
My point is clear enough. The reason you have problems with the creationists, and will definitely continue to have them, both in the UK and the USA, is that in your pragmatists culture who loves simple explanations and one-liners, an agreement exists on both sides to discuss perfect adaptation, with intelligent design and adaptationism as the alternative explanations. Of course the fact that Dawkins pushes his flawed utradarwinian views as “the science” and further wishes to impose atheism to the extreme of suggesting that children growing up in a religion is “child abuse” is basically begging for people to identify his silliness with evolution itself and gives them good argumentative tools to keep the nasty, never-dying debate going.
It seems you cannot conceive other than two possibilities, either you are into a ridiculous ultrapositivist scientism “a la dawkins”, where people who disagree with you have some “physiological problem of unreason” (chuckle), OR you are some kind of religious looney (as you constantly strive to fit me into) that easily embraces creationism.
And where is humanism in all this? You know, some TRUE left-thinking? Oh, right… You don’t have any.You are all waiting for either god or science to effortlessly bring utopia.

Comment #136822

Posted by guthrie on October 2, 2006 4:12 PM (e)

Ummm, so wheres your evidence?

So far all youve done is smear the members of this website, like a good troll, and accuse them of all sorts of things, without any evidence.

Do you want us to assassinate Dawkins for you or something?

And whats with the “LEftier than thou” thinking? You have no information whatsoever on the political leanings of the people you smear, yet seem happy to castigate them for not living up to your standards, whatever they are.
You appear to be saying that we should be using humanism to oppose religion for some reason.

Comment #136825

Posted by bjm on October 2, 2006 4:22 PM (e)

god is a human construct and I don’t require it in my utopia, which is real - life is good as it is. I don’t need to hold anything accountable for the bad-times either!

Just point out a few flaws in your reasoning; yes, simple is best. It’s not always possible but when it gets the message across it works well. The difference between the ID/C people and the rest of us is that we are open to alternative explanations (but here’s the catch) so long as they are testable. We don’t have a front-loaded perception of reality that prevents us from questioning our existence? It’s that freedom that gives us the ability to THINK, without the guilt!

I wouldn’t deny anyone the freedom to believe in whatever they want but that same courtesy is not forthcoming from te ID/C crowd who would have our children indoctrinated given the chance. Take a look at Dembski’s new venture - he even promotes it as ‘..give us your young people’ You can’t beat honesty!

Comment #136836

Posted by Clastito on October 2, 2006 5:04 PM (e)

“Ummm, so wheres your evidence”

Wow Guthrie that objection sounds so “sciency”..actually without specifying exactly what kind of evidence you want me to produce over which point, it is no better objection than a mindless shrug or a cynical “so what”

Many of the things I say are quite undeniable, like the persistence of creationism, the bestselling popularity of both Behe and Dawkins, the pervasiveness of adaptationism in “popular biology” documentaries, the capitalist origins of darwinism… So be more specific about what you want. Statistics that prove dawkins is part of the problem? Yeah, probably (chuckle). Hey, I want some that prove he is NOT part of the problem. Iguess its just useless for anyone to point out when he says something silly, no matter how clear his mistake, huh?
But you see, we can use our brains to follow logical implications and argue…its not like if we don’t have some statistics proving probably nothing we have to throw our arms in the air and cancell all thinking process because it is unassailable mystery, if you get what I mean. So, I repeat, if you demand evidence, say what kind of evidence. Think it well!!!

And stop whining about “me smearing everyone here”, you look like some rusty old patriot. I am not talking of all PT or even of you (unless you feel so), I’m describing general cultural conditions that you have, and its up to you to ponder if you are part of the silliness or what can you do about it. Because it’s there, whether you like it or not.

And no, I am not asking for someone to kill dawkins. Try saying something sophisticated, please. That kind of argument is a joke, the kind of one-liner Steve Colbert would use.

BJM: If dembsky wants to embarrass himself showing sooo clearly he is just after a political agenda, let the fool do so! We don’t have to believe in following the same strategies.

Comment #136837

Posted by bjm on October 2, 2006 5:13 PM (e)

Where/how do you differ from Dembski et al? The message doesn’t sound too dissimilar?

Comment #136841

Posted by Steviepinhead on October 2, 2006 5:32 PM (e)

So here’s a specific question, Clastito. You said:

It seems you cannot conceive other than two possibilities, either you are into a ridiculous ultrapositivist scientism “a la dawkins”, where people who disagree with you have some “physiological problem of unreason” (chuckle), OR you are some kind of religious looney (as you constantly strive to fit me into) that easily embraces creationism.

So what’s your third (or however many) possibility, C? Specifically? What solution do you see that lies between these two poles and which might lift us out of the cycle of cultural dynamics that you (apparently) claim to discern?

Don’t worry about evidence or statistics, to start with. Just answer the question.

Comment #136846

Posted by Clastito on October 2, 2006 6:00 PM (e)

Pffff… BJM, I’ll tell you, only when you make it clear how do YOU differ from mashed potatoes.
Yet another IDIOT accusing me of creationism… that does it. It’s happened like four times…SUCH pigheadedness. I’d rather watch the colbert show.

Stevie, It’s kind of amazing to me that you actually cannot imagine other than that dichotomy, just as in my worst expectatives.
Do you really need a LABEL for something else? How about…no label?
Do not rest on easy formulas and prefabricated answers, and do not look at me for new ones. I wont provide you with any!!! YOU on your own, will have to figure things out. Because thats the way it is and how it should be. Pure personal thought.

The answer that sounds more “sciencey” or atheistic does not necessarily address the problem, even if you get cheers from the herd. It is putting an end before adequate examination of a problem. Usually it will lead you into some truly stupid simplistic mistake… and ultimately, you will be a very bad scientist indeed. Things are not simple. No one-liners from me. Sorry.

Comment #136848

Posted by Anton Mates on October 2, 2006 6:02 PM (e)

Clastito wrote:

Of course the fact that Dawkins pushes his flawed utradarwinian views as “the science” and further wishes to impose atheism to the extreme of suggesting that children growing up in a religion is “child abuse”

Dawkins also includes atheism under that heading. He doesn’t think children should be taught to be atheists any more than they should be taught to commit to any religious viewpoint, and he has said so. More than once.

Really, I have no great respect for Dawkins–I think many of his arguments are pretty specious with respect to both evolution and religion–but you seem to be operating on a rather distorted view of the guy.

Comment #136852

Posted by Steviepinhead on October 2, 2006 6:13 PM (e)

Thanks, Clastito. Kinda what I was beginning to think: you’ve got lots of vaguely-articulated criticisms of (your own oversimplified version of) other people’s approaches, while having nothing concrete to offer yourself.

I’m glad to know I can skip anything else you post.

Comment #136856

Posted by Clastito on October 2, 2006 6:35 PM (e)

Yeah, stevie, go look yourself for a herd somewhere else. Believe me, I have my way of thinking, and it works. But it’s not a one -liner, nor do I want some silly badge for it (none would work). Thinking carefully is not EASY Stevie, don’t expect any easy way unless it is false. You lazy slob.

Anton,
If Dawkins says the same about atheism it just strikes me as equally silly!!!!. Such improvised, unelegant “fairness” does not make it right, it just makes it worse. Usually when you say something silly you have to say something equally silly if you want to merely balance it without taking it away. It’s obvious that parents raisning their kids in atheism is NOT child abuse. It doesn’t mean they cannot turn religious, later on, either.

No wonder that I am not be interested in analyzing every lousy utterance of dawkins of feeble band aids he has apllied over the cracks of his scientism. Reading Dawkins to me is as boring and annoying as reading Behe, sorry to say. The silliness that dawkina produces in his fans is all over the place on the science blogs… and that’s quite enough for me, thanks.

Comment #136864

Posted by Steviepinhead on October 2, 2006 7:06 PM (e)

Spastisto:

Thinking carefully is not EASY Stevie

‘Specially for us poor pinheads.

But at least we know right up front what my excuse is.

What’s yours, O great lone wolf of intellectualism, prowling the far peripheries of the herd-mind and snarking away to yourself?

But, wait, you didn’t stay out there on “the edge,” didja? You came here, instead, with something on your mind.

But whatever it was, you seem to have forgotten, or mislaid. Or perhaps your intellectual reach just exceeded your neuronal grasp.

Darned pinheadedness! Now it’s catching…

Comment #136886

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 2, 2006 8:30 PM (e)

WEll, lennie, looks like he has you bang to rights!

If he did, he’d know that I’m, uh, a commie.

Apparently his crystal ball needs some polishing. Or else he’s not as perceptively brilliant as he THINKS he is.

He sounds like every Maoist I’ve ever met. Especially this part:

And where is humanism in all this? You know, some TRUE left-thinking? Oh, right… You don’t have any.You are all waiting for either god or science to effortlessly bring utopia.

It sure is a good thing we have all those Leninists to beat some sense into our stupid heads, isn’t it.

Whenever I hear someone telling me what’s good for me, I reach for my gun.

Comment #136887

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 2, 2006 8:33 PM (e)

But whatever it was, you seem to have forgotten, or mislaid. Or perhaps your intellectual reach just exceeded your neuronal grasp.

His message seems to me to be rather a simple one —- “he’s smarter than all of us, so there”.

Comment #136901

Posted by Clastito on October 2, 2006 9:39 PM (e)

Yeah rev, you STARTED by calling me “incoherent nutter” but I didn’t care a bit.. it was predictable. So now, be a man and don’t whine if you indirectly inferr my doubts about your degree of mental sophistication. At least I am capable of containing major farts so I am entitled to believe in some kind of superiority hahaha
And no, having a country with parties from left traditions that actually CAN get some power, does not mean having a bunch of Lenins. I guess it must be difficult for you to trascend a lifetime of right wing cartoons drilled into your brain… coming from a country with only two right-wing parties, where “socialism” alone is some kind of dirty word. Actually at this point all you have is republicans, and republican wannabes (democrats).

Comment #136904

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 2, 2006 9:57 PM (e)

Yeah rev, you STARTED

Waaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!

I guess it must be difficult for you to trascend a lifetime of right wing cartoons drilled into your brain…

You have no idea how funny that is.

Apparently reading comprehension is not one of your strengths.

Comment #136915

Posted by demallien on October 2, 2006 11:59 PM (e)

Yeah rev, you STARTED by calling me “incoherent nutter” but I didn’t care a bit.. it was predictable.

[giggle]
You know Rev, he does have a point there, you’re response WAS predictable. I mean anyone could predict that someone that blithers away for several page-long posts without ever developing a coherent point is going to get called an “incoherent nutter”.

Yup, back to Insult School for you.

Comment #136932

Posted by demallien on October 3, 2006 2:21 AM (e)

Oh, the shame! I said “you’re” instead of “your”! I plead pre- morning coffee disfunction as my excuse…

Comment #136945

Posted by Alan BIrd on October 3, 2006 3:01 AM (e)

For those of you still remaining in this discussion who have an interest in the original subject of the thread, here are 3 very relevant letters in today’s Times:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,171-2385220,00.html

Comment #136948

Posted by Alan BIrd on October 3, 2006 3:08 AM (e)

For those of you still remaining in this discussion who have an interest in the original subject of the thread, here are 3 very relevant letters in today’s Times:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,171-2385220,00.html

Comment #136950

Posted by Darth Robo on October 3, 2006 3:17 AM (e)

“No one-liners from me. Sorry.”

Aw, why not? You could at least TRY to be entertaining. But right now you’re making Heywood sound intelligent. Ok, you’re not a creationist but you got a problem with Dawkins and his ‘scientism’. What are you, a disgruntled member of greenpeace or something? They chuck you out? If you got a problem with Dawkins, then go take it up with him. You got a problem with ‘Darwinism’, well since most people here are pro-evolution well that’s obviously not gonna make you happy is it? So you seem to be wasting your time. And everyone else’s since you’re not making much sense.

Rebel without a cause.

Comment #136954

Posted by guthrie on October 3, 2006 3:28 AM (e)

oh goodie,i got its attention.

Hey, I want some that prove he is NOT part of the problem.
I understand that proving a negative is quite hard to do.

ACtually, I’m looking for evidence of these general cultural conditions you rabbit on about. Sure, creationism is still around, but I have yet to find out the origins of “Darwinism” in capitalism. Care to explain?

You do realise that I was joking about killing Dawkins, right? BEcause so far, you havnt come up with any solutions yourself- I was simply suggesting in an oblique manner that providing solutions to a problem that you see would be helpful.

Comment #136955

Posted by guthrie on October 3, 2006 3:30 AM (e)

A letter in the times directly attacking “truthiness in science” will probably draw some fire. It will be interesting to see how much. If they themselve monitor the media, I think we can expect a response from one of the academic blokes with a PhD and stuff, saying how scientific their critiscisms are, and how important debate is.

Comment #136973

Posted by Goatan on October 3, 2006 6:22 AM (e)

Callisto Said “And no, having a country with parties from left traditions that actually CAN get some power, does not mean having a bunch of Lenins.”

I’m afraid to ask but what country are you from

Comment #136982

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on October 3, 2006 7:30 AM (e)

I have yet to find out the origins of “Darwinism” in capitalism. Care to explain?

It goes something like this (as I heard it at a Socialist Scholars Conference back a few years ago):

Capitalism, particularly in the Victorian age, was seen as dog-eat-dog competition, in which the strong survived and the weak were eaten.

Darwin simply applied that reasoning to the biological world.

Darwin himself was the son of a wealthy Victorian doctor, and married into the wealthy industrialist Wedgewood family, so he (consciously or unconsciously) internalized the capitalist attitude and applied it to what he saw around him.

Hence, the theory of evolution.

That idea is not totally nutty – scientists are, after all, human, and are part of the very same human societites that the rest of us are, and they are influenced by social attitudes just as much as anyone else is. And indeed ideology, personal philosophy and social attitudes do influence the acceptance or popularity of scientific ideas – a good example being human evolution, where, during the industrial 20’s, “Man the Toolmaker” ruled supreme, switching to “Man the Hunter” after WW2 and the Cold War of the 50’s, switching again to “Man the Social Animal” after the 60’s, and switching again to “Sociobiology” during the rise of the Religious Right in the 80’s.

The scientific method, however, along with the peer-review systems, specifically eliminates ideological slants from science by allowing all and sundry to have at them, thus cancelling them all out. Hence, while there may be times and places where ideology rules science, in the end things always work themselves out.

As noted before, moreover, to attribute “science” to social ideology, is to confuse “science” with “the social uses to which science is put”. Nuclear physics, for instance, is science, and the mass of a neutron is the same for a capitalist as it is for a communist. The decision whether to use nuclear physics to build nuclear weapons, though, is a social use of science.

Our misguided friend here seems to be equating the two.

Comment #137011

Posted by Anton Mates on October 3, 2006 10:00 AM (e)

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:

It goes something like this (as I heard it at a Socialist Scholars Conference back a few years ago):

Capitalism, particularly in the Victorian age, was seen as dog-eat-dog competition, in which the strong survived and the weak were eaten.

Darwin simply applied that reasoning to the biological world.

An argument easily torpedoed simply by reading The Descent of Man–that’s not how Darwin envisioned evolution. He argued evolutionary explanations for a ton of non-directly-competitive behaviors: altruism, cooperation, winning mates by “charm” rather than by dragging them off by their hair while fighting off rivals. More than any other prominent biologist of his day, I think, Darwin argued that cooperative behavior was common in the animal world, and that our social and moral impulses were inherited from non-human ancestors. He was certainly more extreme in that area than Huxley or Wallace.

So many people talk about Darwin, and how he was an atheist/Christian/communist/capitalist/misogynist/Nazi; so few actually read him….

Darwin himself was the son of a wealthy Victorian doctor, and married into the wealthy industrialist Wedgewood family, so he (consciously or unconsciously) internalized the capitalist attitude and applied it to what he saw around him.

Actually he was already a Wedgwood on his mother’s side; the families had been linked by marriage and business ties for the last two generations.

Comment #137013

Posted by Clastito on October 3, 2006 10:03 AM (e)

Jeez what a bunch of “fans”… I guess I cannot disappoint them with no answer now.
It’s embarassing how you continue to confirm what I said… as I literally said: “you cannot conceive other than two possibilities, either you are into a ridiculous ultrapositivist scientism “a la dawkins”, where people who disagree with you have some “physiological problem of unreason”, OR you are some kind of religious looney (as you constantly strive to fit me into) that easily embraces creationism”
The brutish ignorance of dawkobot amateurs makes me cry bitter tears of rage…

Darth Robo, explain to us why evolution= Dawkins’s ultradarwinism. PLEASE. (as I pointed out above,utradarwinism a la dawkins, with its gaping defects, when defended in the fashion of scientism as “unquestionable truth” and moreover conflated with evolution, ultimately gives tools to creationists to reject common descent)
Rev, do your homework you lazy preacher. You make a strawman of the capitalist connection with arguments so bad I have NEVER heard of, nor would I take them seriously. The connection is MUCH more direct, historical and unquestionable. Who was Malthus? Who was Adam Smith? Laissez-faire competition leading to progress? Ever heard of superproductivity therefore competition and progress? Pure capitalism. It’s kind of sad to see how these vieww, though now ttally dated within economical theory, still are upheld as the purest natural truth by amateur peddlers of evolution.
Once again,all, don’t be IGNORANT. Darwinism is not evolution. Lamarck, Buffon, etc had made the notion of eolution and common descent well known in academic circles quite before “the origin”. Darwin just slapped a progressist notion of natural selection onto it to explain the “perfection of adaptation” problem, diectky inspired in the theories of the economists that fathered capitalism. You suffer from great cuktura bias to elevate Darwini to divinity… a good job he didi do in demosntarting common descent. he was gifted naturaliust biologist in genral. But he was wrong about his notions on how natural selection worked, and its supposed hegemonical role in evolution. And this is, in fact, the essence of “darwinism”: not so common descent.

Comment #137019

Posted by Glen Davidson on October 3, 2006 10:32 AM (e)

Darwin simply applied that reasoning to the biological world.

Darwin himself was the son of a wealthy Victorian doctor, and married into the wealthy industrialist Wedgewood family, so he (consciously or unconsciously) internalized the capitalist attitude and applied it to what he saw around him.

Hence, the theory of evolution.

The case with Darwin is likely impossible to resolve. As an elite in a Victorian/Newtonian/Lyellianintellectual milieu he was placed in a great position to come up with his version of evolution, the one that works.

But his field work was very important to the production of his ideas, and so was Malthus. As well, the causal mechanisms of both the industrial economy and the agricultural economy lent a useful scientific point of view to Darwin and to his supporters.

The bourgeois freedom of Victorian England was, no doubt, more conducive to excellence in theorizing evolutionary theory than was German despotism and Romanticism. But if so, this was also because Victorian England knew a great deal about how to produce working machines and models, whatever its effects on poor Oliver Twist.

No matter how artificial Social Darwinism (like feudalism and monarchism) is, it nevertheless provided a somewhat helpful analogy with what actually does take place during evolution. In that sense, so what if Social Darwinism helped to give rise to modern evolutionary ideas?

The dark side is that it appears as if the acceptance of Darwinism among the elites (no matter how warped Darwinism was by them) almost certainly is due in part to the fact that Darwinism could be used to “justify” their oppression. Then again, what of that? Religion, theories of lawful succession and hereditary power, and later, claims to rule for “the people” in socialist utopias, have all been so used. The only thing that sets “Darwinism” apart from these as a “category” is that it is scientifically justified.

The scientific method, however, along with the peer-review systems, specifically eliminates ideological slants from science by allowing all and sundry to have at them, thus cancelling them all out. Hence, while there may be times and places where ideology rules science, in the end things always work themselves out.

I would suspect that the scientific method never eliminates ideological slants, and that ideology always affects science. Just ask E.O. Wilson about how well his evolutionary ideas were accepted at first (sure, he won out, but it is possible that “too capitalist” a view of biology exists in some quarters today, particularly in some (but not all) “evolutionary psychology” claims).

What is important is that the empirically justifiable claims are what win out in science. Soviet biologists and Marxist Stephen J. Gould (however “Marxist” someone educated like he was really can be) ended up being undisputed “Darwinians”, not because they liked the implications of “Darwinism”, but because it is all that works–the only theory that can be used to breed better crops for the hungry masses. Socialist or not, one has to obey the dictates of nature if one wishes to improve on its productive capacities for human society.

Importantly, we now understand fairly well how social animals without any essential “Social Darwinist” natures, such as ourselves, may evolve via “Darwinistic” selective pressures. When you have a theory that incorporates virtually all of the data, and even explains reasonably well how cooperation evolves, you know that you have a theory with impressive explanatory powers.

Had Darwinism remained forever tied to “red in tooth and claw” conceptions, it would have eventually failed. Darwinism was fairly heavily associated with Victorian ideas in its inception, but it has a great deal of independence at present. If this, too, were not the case, RM + NS + would eventually fail, for an empirical concept must be tied to the evidence and not to capitalism or atheism, if it is to be of practical and theoretical value.

Today one could argue socialism at least as well from evolutionary theory as one could argue for capitalism from evolutionary theory. Perhaps socialism even has the upper hand from anthropology and primate evolution, since the “big man” (king, president, etc.) appears to be a cultural adaptation, not a biological imperative. I only say “perhaps”, though, because evolution really tells us nothing of “ought”, but only about origins, and successful oppression may be every bit as evolutionarily sound as is successful cooperation.

The real problem with Clastito is that he knows so very little about evolutionary theory:

“Perfect adaptation” was once considered the most clear signal of the intelligence of god…which darwin explained alternatively, through the perfecting and increase of adaptation by the means of natural selection.

Aside from the mangled English, anyone here ever hear of Darwin’s explanation of “perfecting” species? No? Quite the opposite, of course, as Darwin explained what ID cannot (even granted its usual unsupported assumptions), which is why perfection is lacking in the world, and lacking in a particularly derivative pattern.

Likewise, he doesn’t understand that today’s “Darwinism” is no bolster for capitalism, even if it is not infrequently used as such. Like the IDiots, though, he musters his moralistic arguments to “argue” against the model based upon facts.

But if Kruschev and his scientists knew (from their experiences of failure) better than to deny “Darwinism”, why should anyone else deny it? Find a way to fit your theologies and ideologies in with science, and be done with denying reality.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Comment #137022

Posted by Clastito on October 3, 2006 10:48 AM (e)

Now, now, Mr. Glen of the “electric consciousness” (chuckle)
Everyone knows that Darwin as a smart, sophisticated dude. He definitely payed attention to all the major issues, such as the non adaptive traits, historical constraints, and such. But one cloud in the sky does not make a raisntorm, Glen. Look at the general, majoritarian trends of Darwins’s work (as Gould was constantly begging us, to properly judge historical figures)
Inasmuch as his main innovation, his new line of thinking, was the idea that natural selection was the main evolutionary force involved in the improvement of adaptaions, darwin emphasized it quite a lot, and defended it always as being, in the end, “the main thing”. This is true darwinism, and the source of the many progressist notions that darwin repeatedly came up with.
And, as I sai above, it was capitalism that bolstered darwinism. and as I also pointed out above, I do not hold that against darwinism. darwinism can be questioned on purely scientific grounds… specially regarding what is the actual evidence for selection “molding” evolution by accumulation of micromutations. But you would not know about that. Read Orr, “the genetic theory of adaptation” in nature reviews in genetics

Comment #137024

Posted by Clastito on October 3, 2006 11:22 AM (e)

Rev, you strike me as a bit… absent-minded. I made the distinction between science, and social uses to which science is put, from the beggining. it is fundamnetla to my argument that the development of science alone, does not imply the effortless advent of an era of peace. This is the thinly veiled promise of naïve scientism a la dawkins implies wehn the think that religon produces the evild of the world and that things would spontaneously be so much better if we just were more “rational” and “scientific”.

Comment #137026

Posted by Dath Robo on October 3, 2006 11:34 AM (e)

Dude, we get the idea YOU don’t like evolution OR Dawkins. Not everyone here necessarily sgrees with Dawkins on stuff either. But back on topic, there’s still one question I asked that you’ve not answered to any kind of satisfaction (not that the rest of your posts have been coherent):

Do you think it is a good idea to teach religious alternatives to science in school classrooms? You obviously don’t like the ‘ideology’ that ‘Darwinism’ allegedly preaches, but wouldn’t teaching religion in a science class be simply swapping one for another?

At least evolution can be tested. You can’t test ‘POOF!’ (special creation).

Comment #137030

Posted by Darth Robo on October 3, 2006 11:42 AM (e)

“you strike me as a bit… absent-minded.”

Hmmm…

“fundamnetla”

“wehn the think that religon”

“evild”

You know, what’s even worse is, a creationist sits opposite me in work as I type this. Every now and then he get’s curious as to what I’m up to and I have to say “Oh, it’s nothing. Just a boring old science website.” :)

Comment #137032

Posted by Clastito on October 3, 2006 11:46 AM (e)

OK, Darth Robo is idiot Number 5 that thinks I’m a creationist. My predictions work invariably. Expect more idiots like this to drop in.

Comment #137033

Posted by Glen Davidson on October 3, 2006 12:04 PM (e)

Now, now, Mr. Glen of the “electric consciousness” (chuckle)

Chuckle where you don’t understand, yes. You must chuckle a lot.

Everyone knows that Darwin as a smart, sophisticated dude. He definitely payed attention to all the major issues, such as the non adaptive traits, historical constraints, and such. But one cloud in the sky does not make a raisntorm, Glen.

Can you make any sense at all? I don’t just mean that you mangle English, I mean that you ramble on about meaningless nonsense and then think you’ve made a point.

You falsely portrayed Darwin as explaining “perfection”, in complete contradistinction to what he really did. Meaning that you’re just making a lot of noise here, and are unwilling to admit that you’re an ignorant slob in need of much education.

Look at the general, majoritarian trends of Darwins’s work (as Gould was constantly begging us, to properly judge historical figures)

There were no “majoritarian” trends in his book. Darwin was, in fact, rather comfortable in his upper class stratum, only making the usual pious noises that the overclass does about “helping” others.

Now I do suspect that you were referring to something else, indeed, and managed again to mangle your point. But I don’t really care, since you have made little sense in any area so far, most notably in the area of science.

Inasmuch as his main innovation, his new line of thinking, was the idea that natural selection was the main evolutionary force involved in the improvement of adaptaions, darwin emphasized it quite a lot, and defended it always as being, in the end, “the main thing”.

Were you unable to comprehend the fact that I noted that he was correct in that? Can you read no better than you write?

This is true darwinism, and the source of the many progressist notions that darwin repeatedly came up with.

Social Darwinism isn’t “progressive”, if that is what you’re trying to say. If not, try to learn to communicate your thoughts coherently.

Beyond that, I pointed out that “Darwinism” today can support socialism about as well as capitalism, perhaps better. Deal with that, instead of repeating your garbled claims.

And, as I sai above, it was capitalism that bolstered darwinism. and as I also pointed out above, I do not hold that against darwinism.

Then why bring it up? What is your point? Can you think no more coherently than you read and you write?

darwinism can be questioned on purely scientific grounds…

Theoretically this is true. Why don’t you do so, if you have anything intelligent to write?

specially regarding what is the actual evidence for selection “molding” evolution by accumulation of micromutations. But you would not know about that.

OK, you’re a flat-out lying sack of. Of course I know about that, you’re the ignorant stupid thing on this forum.

Learn about the evidence in favor of evolution, and tell us how it differs from what is expected from RM + NS +. And learn some proper terminology. “Micromutation” is a meaningless term in this vein of thinking, and as you projected, you yourself do not understand these matters at all, but would rather drone on senselessly in your prejudices.

Read Orr, “the genetic theory of adaptation” in nature reviews in genetics

Read any science, you dim bulb. You answered none of my points, but simply wrote incoherently the same meaningless claptrap that you wrote beforehand. If you’re not a creationist or IDist, you differ from them not at all in intelligence and in learning.

I didn’t even respond to your gibberish, you know, except to note what you do not understand, though I recognize that what I listed was hardly comprehensive. But I know now that you can’t even understand a meaningful response to your idiocies. You are in need of a large amount of education, versus the tiny-minded propaganda that infests the cavity in your head.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Comment #137034

Posted by bjm on October 3, 2006 12:11 PM (e)

OK if you’re not a creationist are you the elusive ‘designer’ that noone dare speak of? How many guesses can we have?

Comment #137036

Posted by Clastito on October 3, 2006 12:24 PM (e)

From your website, Glen

“Consciousness is comprised of one or more electromagnetic fields, probably mostly electrical in nature”

Sounds very sciencey, but actually is a piece of perfectly useless simplistic crap. That is what scientism is all about, and you provide just the perfect example.
Good luck with captain Kirk and everyone at the Glenterprise

Comment #137038

Posted by Raging Bee on October 3, 2006 12:28 PM (e)

I think Clastito is ODing on something. His first post here made a little bit of sense, but he’s been going rapidly downhill since then. Should someone be calling Poison Control?

Comment #137041

Posted by Clastito on October 3, 2006 12:38 PM (e)

“A physiological problem of unreason?”

As predictable as creationists

Comment #137044

Posted by Glen Davidson on October 3, 2006 12:41 PM (e)

From your website, Glen

“Consciousness is comprised of one or more electromagnetic fields, probably mostly electrical in nature”

Dear stupid little man: I know that you’re no more intelligent or learned than a creationist/IDist, but perhaps you could learn how to be honest. I doubt it, but at least try. What I actually wrote was this:

Overview of consciousness problems, and possible solutions

Problem: Consciousness is characterized by unity (or unities).

Explanation: Consciousness is comprised of one or more electromagnetic fields, probably mostly electrical in nature.

The whole point on that page was to give possible solution, as I wrote in the title. Now “truth machine” had similar problems with the truth over on Ed’s (IIRC) blog, but that’s not surprising, as we have our dolts and cretins as well.

And yes, I argue the case out, somewhat on my site, more in my book. I realize that you are too unintelligent to recognize that you haven’t comprehended what you read, or that I would actually make a case rather than babble and drool as you do, but you could try to learn to not speak where you fully fail to understand.

Sounds very sciencey, but actually is a piece of perfectly useless simplistic crap.

And I’m sure that if you were intelligent and knowing you could and would explain how that was, instead of telling more stupid lies, as is your wont.

That is what scientism is all about, and you provide just the perfect example.

Actually, you provide the perfect example, since you have no knowledge of science, yet you make claims in the name of science to cover up your unintelligence and near-total ignorance.

Good luck with captain Kirk and everyone at the Glenterprise

Thank you for doing the only think you can do, drool and rave about the knowledge that you imagine is in your possession. I would be concerned if you thought that what I had written was correct, as you never manage to understand science, not according to what you have written.

Btw, why are you on this topic? Is it because you can’t understand what I had written in response to you, and are tired of demonstrating that all you can do is babble and drool?

I recognize that all you are capable of doing is attacking intelligence, and wish to promote yourself in the doing. However, you cannot bolster your ego here by making incoherent and ad hominem attacks, for your lack of intelligence is altogether too visible, not only in your lack of science knowledge, but also in your incapacity to read, write, and to think.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Comment #137046

Posted by Clastito on October 3, 2006 12:49 PM (e)

Hehehe. I can’t say I did not enjoy that. Evil me.
Go sell your snake oil somewhere else, Glen… I would be surprised even if anyone here is buying it.

Comment #137049

Posted by Glen Davidson on October 3, 2006 12:55 PM (e)

Babble and drool, cretin, babble and drool.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Comment #137059

Posted by Michael Roberts on October 3, 2006 1:52 PM (e)

Ken Ham is upset by clergy in his blog

Anglican priest fights creationists in UK
Published October 2nd, 2006 in My Journeys, Current Issues in the World EMail This Post to a Friend
ANGLICAN PRIEST FIGHTS CREATIONISTS IN UK

Recently, a group of UK creationists (including well qualified scientists) sent an information packet to schools in the UK in regard to the creation/evolution issue. They have their own website to along with this information (www.truthinscience.org.uk) Sadly, but not surprisingly, a church leader is publicly opposing this group. A report from Ekklesia in the UK states:

It is not possible to predict the outcome of this exercise. Some teachers may have already used the DVDs to scare birds from their vegetable patch. However it will give a way for the increasing number of YEC science teachers to introduce creationism into the classroom, despite the fact that it is scientific nonsense and dependent on the gross misrepresentations of standard science.

It is a concern that the authors are sure that OFSTED will not object to their ideas. The result will be to confuse students, to increase the antagonism of non-believers, and to raise opposition to faith schools of any kind.

Sadly the church, and especially the Church of England, has avoided taking a stand on these issues, possibly to avoid confrontation with more conservative members. Far too often the opponents of this pseudo-scientific nonsense are atheists, who then use this to ridicule faith. Will the church now wake up?

You can read the rest of the report at: www.ekklesia.co.uk

WINNIPEG MINISTRY

By the time you read this blog, I should be on my way to Winnipeg Canada to speak at a conference. Please pray for the effectiveness of the talks. For further information, go to: Winnepeg Conference.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying

Ken