Navigation
Disclaimer
Authors are solely responsible for the content of their articles on PandasThumb.org. Linked material is the responsibility of the party who created it. 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.
Recent Comments
- Joseph O'Donnell on May 7, 2005 03:01 PM
- Engineer-Poet on May 7, 2005 02:51 PM
- Arne Langsetmo on May 7, 2005 12:17 AM
- Arne Langsetmo on May 6, 2005 11:42 PM
- Arne Langsetmo on May 6, 2005 11:03 PM
- Arne Langsetmo on May 6, 2005 10:43 PM
- Ed Darrell on May 6, 2005 10:36 PM
- Ed Darrell on May 6, 2005 10:24 PM
- Arne Langsetmo on May 6, 2005 10:22 PM
- bill on May 6, 2005 07:59 PM
Recent Trackbacks
Recommend this entry to a friend
Site Traffic
Posted by Nick Matzke on May 5, 2005 09:49 PM
Interestingly for a group that says they are not promoting intelligent design or creationism, the Kansas Kangaroo Court today called Charles Thaxton, the creationist who had the bright idea to rename creationism as “intelligent design” back in 1988.
According to Red State Rabble:
During cross examination, Thaxton admitted that he does not believe that humans — homo sapiens — evolved from hominid ancestors.
According to MSNBC:
During the hearing, Irigonegaray asked Thaxton whether he accepted the theory that humans and apes had a common ancestor.
“Personally, I do not,” Thaxton said. “I’m not an expert on this. I don’t study this.”
What’s that? A chemistry professor testifying against evolution says that he is not an expert on human evolution, but defies the scientific consensus despite unfamiliarity with the evidence? Makes perfect sense to me. If listeners are supposed to disregard all of the antievolution testimony before the Kansas Kangaroo Court whenever the antievolution witnesses speak on topics outside of their professional expertise, then there wasn’t much point in these hearings.
Let’s review some of the evidence on the somewhat important question of human evolution. It is not as if it is hard to find.
One: Hominid skull sizes for the last several million years
Two:
Hominid skull photos
Three: Comparison of human and ape chromosomes
Four: Embryology. Yep, that’s right Dr. Wells, the real embryos support evolution. See also here.
Five: Shared retrovirus leftovers at identical places in human and ape genomes
Six: Human babies with actual atavistic tails
Seven: Sequence similarities
If any of the “witnesses” at the Kangaroo Court actually deal with this kind of evidence, someone let us know.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1008
Comment #28531
Posted by Joseph O'Donnell on May 5, 2005 10:41 PM (e) (s)
Cretionist: But you are using Haeckles ideas that were disproved. Actual photos of human and animal embryos are not relevant!! Who would think that actual photos would prove anything, because Haeckle was wrong that makes all comparative embryology wrong!
Comment #28538
Posted by Les Lane on May 5, 2005 11:23 PM (e) (s)
The internet shows that Thaxton is an apologist, not a chemist. None of this is the sort of evidence an apologist would pay attention to since it’s inconsistent with beliefs.
Comment #28546
Posted by Jim Foley on May 6, 2005 12:42 AM (e) (s)
If listeners are supposed to disregard all of the antievolution testimony before the Kansas Kangaroo Court whenever the antievolution witnesses speak on topics outside of their professional expertise, then there wasn’t much point in these hearings.
To be fair, I think it’s a bit harsh to criticize them for talking on topics outside their expertise given that they’re responding to questions we’re asking them. (By all means show up their scientific ignorance though; this should be very entertaining)
Comment #28550
Posted by Mark Perakh on May 6, 2005 01:07 AM (e) (s)
It is interesting that a Russian TV channel has reacted to the Kansas travesty with a sound bite: “The teaching of Darwin’s evolution theory may be forbidden in the USA.”
Comment #28554
Posted by Burt Humburg on May 6, 2005 01:51 AM (e) (s)
Wells today (yesterday now, I guess) cited sequence differences between the 18s subunit of the ribosome and aberancies between it and the phylogenetic tree produced by other means. No word yet on how he thinks it is possible to construct such a tree in the first place.
My favorite Wells moment would have to be when Irigonegaray asked him if he believes in common descent. Wells answered, “Within a species? Yes.”
Just for the records, Jonathan Wells believes in geneology.
Glad we got that cleared up.
BCH
Comment #28574
Posted by Gogeta on May 6, 2005 07:10 AM (e) (s)
C’mon! Sheriously you guys! Can’t you see evolution is false. God himself told me. He came and sang “Dredle dredle dredle, I made you out of clay.
Comment #28575
Posted by Gogeta on May 6, 2005 07:12 AM (e) (s)
C’mon! Sheriously you guys! Can’t you see evolution is false. God himself told me. He came and sang “Dredle dredle dredle, I made you out of clay.”
Comment #28582
Posted by Gogeta on May 6, 2005 07:59 AM (e) (s)
C’mon! Sheriously you guys! Can’t you see evolution is false. God himself told me. He came and sang “Dredle dredle dredle, I made you out of clay.”
Comment #28585
Posted by Just Bob on May 6, 2005 08:33 AM (e) (s)
Hey, where’s the original of that poster at the top of this thread? Can I buy a copy somewhere?
Comment #28596
Posted by Zeteo Eurisko on May 6, 2005 09:41 AM (e) (s)
A copy of the original poster is here:
http://photos1.blogger.com/img/137/3111/640/Historic_Discoveries_Web_Poster.jpg
Comment #28598
Posted by mark on May 6, 2005 09:46 AM (e) (s)
To be fair, I think it’s a bit harsh to criticize them for talking on topics outside their expertise given that they’re responding to questions we’re asking them. (By all means show up their scientific ignorance though; this should be very entertaining)
Then why are the Kansas taxpayers paying for this? Why not just put the students on the stand…they’re probably just as expert as these Bozos.
Comment #28599
Posted by Steve Feldberg on May 6, 2005 09:52 AM (e) (s)
As you’re probably aware, there’s a fascinating and controversial process playing out in Topeka, Kansas. A subcommittee of the state Board of Education is holding hearings on whether to add the teaching of intelligent design/creationism to the science curriculum.
As a public service, Audible.com is offering free audio downloads of the complete hearings [May 5-7, with an additional session scheduled for May 12]. Short registration is required [name & email address].
We would welcome a link to www.audible.com/kansashearings The audio from Day 1 is already up; we’ll be adding each session day by day.
Thanks!
Steve Feldberg
Programming Director – Audible, Inc.
www.audible.com
Comment #28626
Posted by skinnyd on May 6, 2005 12:01 PM (e) (s)
Come on Panda’s thumb. Is this the best you can do? Charles Thaxton is a CHEMIST, not a biologist, or paleontologist. His expertise is on the origins of first lifes- from a chemists perspective. If Richard Dawkins were to testify, and admitted in testimony that he wasn’t familiar with cosmological parameters that yield to a finely tuned universe, I seriously doubt that any of the ID theorists would be ranting ‘Dawkins doesn’t know anything about cosmology (b/c he’s a philosopher of biology) therefore the whole naturalist/evolutionist movement is a fraud!
Comment #28627
Posted by Pierce R. Butler on May 6, 2005 12:03 PM (e) (s)
Matzke:
… Charles Thaxton, the creationist who had the bright idea to rename creationism as “intelligent design” back in 1988.
But that link, an article by Paul Nelson, doesn’t specify who came up with the term “ID”. Thaxton is credited only as organizer of a “June 1988 conference on the origin of information content in DNA” at which an early manuscript of Darwin on Trial was circulated, and as co-author of a 1984 book, The Mystery of Life’s Origin.
Nelson mentions another conference in June 1993 organized by Philip Johnson “at the California beach town of Pajaro Dunes” representing a variety of creationist viewpoints: “Pajaro Dunes thus became a model for what has come to be known as the intelligent design movement.” (Implying the name was coined afterwards.)
There’s a pattern here - watch out for creationist conferences in June!
Comment #28629
Posted by Great White Wonder on May 6, 2005 12:34 PM (e) (s)
Jim
To be fair, I think it’s a bit harsh to criticize them for talking on topics outside their expertise given that they’re responding to questions we’re asking them.
But that’s one of the important points to be made, I think.
Thaxton admits he’s not an expert. He knows that essentially all of the world’s experts agree that apes and humans shared a common ancestor.
Asked if accepts the opinion of these experts: no.
Arguably, this sort of behavior is the heart of the case.
The reality is that there is no controversy about evolution among scientists. All we have is a bunch of loud-mouthed well-funded cranks who exploit people’s religious prejudices.
Imagine we’re in Washington in some white supremacists part of the state. A majority of white supremacists manage to get themselves elected to a public school board. They want to teach that blacks are inherently stupider than whites. So what do they do? They hold a “hearing” where they get 100 “well-credentialed” “experts” in various fields to testify that the belief that whites and blanks are insignificantly different with respect to IQ is just “dogma” among the “scientific community” but the “paradigm is shifting” and we need to “think critically” about the issues and “we shouldn’t be prejudiced” against “controversial” ideas.
There is no principaled difference between this hypothetical and what is going on in Kansas right now.
Moreoever, if these extremists were to succeed in Kansas (which they won’t) and if the Supreme Court said “no problem” (which they wont), I guarantee you that anti-gay bigotry will be taught in health and science classes in Kansas school’s shortly thereafter. Why? The correct question is : why not?
Comment #28634
Posted by Great White Wonder on May 6, 2005 12:44 PM (e) (s)
skinnyd
If Richard Dawkins were to testify, and admitted in testimony that he wasn’t familiar with cosmological parameters that yield to a finely tuned universe, I seriously doubt that any of the ID theorists would be ranting ‘Dawkins doesn’t know anything about cosmology (b/c he’s a philosopher of biology) therefore the whole naturalist/evolutionist movement is a fraud!
I am not a particular fan of Dawkins, but I think it is not controversial to point out that Charles Thaxton’s entire lifetime of thought amounts to less than a zit on the ass of Dawkin’s intellect.
Comment #28635
Posted by FL on May 6, 2005 12:44 PM (e) (s)
Thanks, Steve, that is a very valuable service for those of us unable to be at the hearings in person.
*******
Meanwhile, Jim Foley writes,
To be fair, I think it’s a bit harsh to criticize them for talking on topics outside their expertise given that they’re responding to questions we’re asking them.
Thank you, Jim. You’re being extremely charitable there in your assessment, by the way. Totally so.
But, here in T-town, everybody knows that Pedro Irigonegaray is one smart lawyer. He’s no dummy.
He ~knows~ that Dr. Thaxton, along with Drs. Walter Bradley and Roger Olsen, produced the well-received, well-written book The Mystery of Life’s Origin.
Mr. Irigon ~knows~ he’s dealing with a professional PhD scientist whose expertise is chemistry, on the witness stand.
(Les, whenever you get around to reading Thaxton et al’s book at your local library, do check out the back pages. That’s the part where it says straight-up that Thaxton is a PhD chemist, unlike you and me.
Let us give credit where credit is due…already.)
Anyway, Mr. Irigon is WAY too smart to ask Dr. Thaxton any questions relevant to Thaxton’s own scientific speciality and published works; way too smart to ask any questions of Thaxton regarding the life-evolved-from-nonliving-chemicals-in-primordial-soup claims that are even now taught in Kansas public school biology textbooks;
way too smart to even ask any Thaxton any questions relating to the actual merits or demerits of the proposed 2005 Science Standard Modification that directly mentions and deals with origin-of-life. (You’ve read it already, haven’t you?)
At any rate, Mr. Irigon knows that Dr. Thaxton, if asked such questions, would immediately offer up a professional tutorial that would, quite honestly, put Mr. Irigon’s evolutionist fanny (not to mention Nick’s and Mark’s, for that matter) to pure public shame.
A hickory-smoked disaster for the First Church of Darwin, right in front of the media that Mr. Irigon wants so desperately to play to.
So, to avoid gettin’ what’s comin’ to him, what does Mr. Irigon do, smart attorney that he is? But of course, mon ami!
He asks Thaxton about human evolution instead, as if Thaxton’s a paleontologist or something. So very clever, he is!
To Dr. Thaxton’s credit, he replied with complete straight-up honesty. “Personally, I do not. I’m not an expert on this. I don’t study this.”
Let me close where I began, then, with Jim’s quote.
To be fair, I think it’s a bit harsh to criticize them for talking on topics outside their expertise given that they’re responding to questions we’re asking them.
Such a charitable assessment. But at least somebody on the evo-side recognized the problem. That’s a start.
FL
Comment #28637
Posted by FL on May 6, 2005 12:49 PM (e) (s)
Btw, I don’t yet have a transcript of everything yet. So if by chance Mr. Irigon did correctly ask Dr. Thaxton questions appropriate to Thaxton’s specialty and the relevent Sci-Standard proposal (origin of life), I will stand corrected. Just show where he did, that’s all.
But if not, then I stand by my comments. I’ll check back after work to see.
Comment #28638
Posted by Great White Wonder on May 6, 2005 12:50 PM (e) (s)
FL
At any rate, Mr. Irigon knows that Dr. Thaxton, if asked such questions, would immediately offer up a professional tutorial that would, quite honestly, put Mr. Irigon’s evolutionist fanny (not to mention Nick’s and Mark’s, for that matter) to pure public shame.
A hickory-smoked disaster for the First Church of Darwin, right in front of the media that Mr. Irigon wants so desperately to play to.
Speaking of smoke, FL, what are you smoking right now?
Comment #28646
Posted by skinnyd on May 6, 2005 01:37 PM (e) (s)
I am not a particular fan of Dawkins, but I think it is not controversial to point out that Charles Thaxton’s entire lifetime of thought amounts to less than a zit on the ass of Dawkin’s intellect.
My only point is that there are better things to critique- such as what Thaxton did promote during the trials. This entire article is based on the fallacy of ignorance. Thaxton is ignorant of some aspects of some disciplines outside his respective field, but that doesn’t entail that his positions on them are in any way invalid. I guess that isn’t a fallacy on the Panda’s thumb board though. From what i’ve read over the past few weeks, there are many fallacies that aren’t considered fallacies here :)
skinnyd
http://tuquoque.blogspot.com…
Comment #28648
Posted by Michael Finley on May 6, 2005 01:41 PM (e) (s)
I am not a particular fan of Dawkins, but I think it is not controversial to point out that Charles Thaxton’s entire lifetime of thought amounts to less than a zit on the ass of Dawkin’s intellect.
You’re classy if you’re anything.
Comment #28653
Posted by jaimito on May 6, 2005 02:10 PM (e) (s)
This new Kansas Trial may be historical. The outcome does not seem to me guaranteed, PZ may have been right a month ago - he wrote we may be losing. It has to be recognized that bringing in a Muslim was master stroke. Nick´s article is the best summary I have ever seen on evolution, could it be used in the trial?
Comment #28663
Posted by Michael I on May 6, 2005 02:56 PM (e) (s)
Bringing in a Muslim from a fundamentalist Holocaust-denying organization, however, may well backfire on the Kansas creationists.
Comment #28666
Posted by Shaggy Maniac on May 6, 2005 03:12 PM (e) (s)
“Nick´s article is the best summary I have ever seen on evolution, could it be used in the trial?”
I agree it’s a great summary of solid empirical evidence. One issue (a vacuous one, in my opinion) that the opposing side would likely raise is that all of the evidence Nick has summarized is comparative in nature. Of course, comparative data are entirely fair game for scientific inference and are widely used in various scientific disciplines. But, that won’t stop the deniers from trying to discount it.
Comment #28680
Posted by natural cynic on May 6, 2005 04:25 PM (e) (s)
>So, to avoid gettin’ what’s comin’ to >him, what does Mr. Irigon do, smart >attorney that he is? But of course, mon >ami!
>He asks Thaxton about human evolution >instead, as if Thaxton’s a >paleontologist or something. So very >clever, he is!
Gee, a clever lawyer not asking “relevant” questions in order to avoid the evidence. Not that a lawyer with the initials PJ would ever try to do that.
Comment #28683
Posted by Salvador T. Cordova on May 6, 2005 04:51 PM (e) (s)
I liked, the NY times title, “Darwinism Goes on Trial”, it originally was, “Hearings on Diluting Evolution” or something like that, until the media mastermind of the DI, Rob Crowther, protested on his blog around midnight Pacific Time. Several hours later, the AP, NY Times title was renamed to:”In Kansas, Darwinism Goes on Trial Once More”. DARWIN ON TRIAL! Do I hear echoes of Phil Johnson book in the headlines? I continue to be impressed that the DI is able to get the press to finally get closer to telling the story straight.
Regarding Human Evolution, by someone who is biologist, at the hearing,
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/11575585.htm…
Giuseppe Sermonti, a retired genetics professor from the University of Perugia, Italy, said evolution can lead groups to discriminate against “lesser” cultures. He called the idea that man and apes share a common ancestor “very questionable.”
Also, between species, similarity does not automatically imply common descent as demonstrated by the problem of convergence. Further, population genetics puts speed limits on evolution. Doubt of the efficacy of evolutionary mechanisms to evolve humans has been demonstrated by Walter ReMine, despite the fierce detraction of his critics. Haldane’s Dilemma was never solved by the selectionists. Neither do the neutralist approaches offer plausible solutions to Haldane’s dilemma.
Therefore the human evolution has theoretical considerations which call the theory’s plausibitily into question.
In addition we have the adequacy of the fossil record:
“The fossil record pertaining to man is still so sparsely known that those who insist on positive declarations
can do nothing more than jump from one hazardous surmise to another and hope that the next dramatic discovery
does not make them utter fools… Clearly, some people refuse to learn from this. As we have seen, there are
numerous scientists and popularizers today who have the temerity to tell us that there is ‘no doubt’ how man
originated. If only they had the evidence…”
Fix, William R. (1984)
The Bone Peddlers
p.150
When we consider the remote past, before the origin of the actual species Homo sapiens, we are faced with a fragmentary and disconnected fossil record. Despite the excited and optimistic claims that have been made by some paleontologists, no fossil hominid species can be established as our direct ancestor….
Richard Lewontin (1995)
Human Diversity
p. 163
To be fair, I’m sure Lewontin believes, humans evolved, but he was commenting on the state of empirical evidence. Is that an accurate representation of affairs?
Further, the hiearchical pattern of sequence similarity is problematic for selectionist and neutralist theories. The hierarchies are a powerful evidence of a pre-meditated organic design which is consistent with creationist platonic essentialism. If the hierarchical pattern is evidence of common design, then common descent is superflous rather than foundational as an explanation for the positioning of humans in the molecular hierarchy. Common design is a better explanation for the hierarchy than common descent. In light of these theoretical and empirical considerations, Thaxton could be right.
Besides, Thaxton was presumambly called into testify on his field of expertise which is the origin of life. Someone disbelieving human evolution does not imply they are ignorant about their field of expertise.
Thaxton’s book was by the same publisher of eight Nobel Laureates. No one here at PandasThumb has been able to successfully refute the major premises of Thaxton’s book, The Mystery of Life’s Origin.
Thaxton is a big reason why intelligent design is marching ahead. His book in 1984, is viewed by Dembski as the beginning of intelligent design movement. It was what helped convert Dembski. Darwinists have never refuted the major points of his book.
If Nick Matzke wants to be calling Thaxton clueless, perhaps he should try refuting the major points of Thaxton book.
Comment #28692
Posted by Great White Wonder on May 6, 2005 05:04 PM (e) (s)
Salvador
I liked, the NY times title, “Darwinism Goes on Trial”, it originally was, “Hearings on Diluting Evolution” or something like that, until the media mastermind of the DI, Rob Crowther, protested on his blog around midnight Pacific Time. Several hours later, the AP, NY Times title was renamed to:”In Kansas, Darwinism Goes on Trial Once More”. DARWIN ON TRIAL!
Nothing is less attractive than a gloating fundamentalist.
Are you ready to explain to the scientific theory of “intelligent design” Salvador?
Someone disbelieving human evolution does not imply they are ignorant about their field of expertise.
No, but when someone who is sort of a half-assed twit in any field says that they don’t believe humans and apes shared a common ancestor, that does imply ignorance. Also arrogance.
Of course, we know that Cordova suffers from an inability to recognize either in a fellow extremist nitwit.
No one here at PandasThumb has been able to successfully refute the major premises of Thaxton’s book, The Mystery of Life’s Origin.
The question is so obvious I won’t bother asking.
Comment #28693
Posted by Brian Webster on May 6, 2005 05:05 PM (e) (s)
Oooh!! Thaxton’s a scientist?!? Hmm, the Pubmed search that I did on him had his last paper (in JCB) in 1979, on freeze-fracture EM studies in myelin. And now he’s working as a visiting professor in Charles University in the Czech Republic. So, as a P Chem PhD, who has published studies on muscle fibers, this makes him at all relevant to the evolution discussion how? Not only that, not publishing for over 30 years and working on a visiting basis for a university in Prague (sorry to offend any Czech Republicans!) is not exactly an impressive scientific resume. My guess is he fudged some data a while back (we went through this in my lab - the guy who did it is now blacklisted for life) and now CAN’T work in science any more. So he publishes his little irrelevant books. Really, to be a qualified creation scientist and contribute to the public discourse on evolution, apparently all you need to have done is looked at a test tube or something.
Comment #28695
Posted by Brian Webster on May 6, 2005 05:10 PM (e) (s)
Sorry - I meant nerve fibers instead of muscle fibers. Myelin is the structure that covers nerves in order to prevent ion leakage and allow electrical signals to propagate further.
Comment #28697
Posted by Marco Ferrari on May 6, 2005 05:14 PM (e) (s)
Giuseppe Sermonti is way past his good days as biologist, if ever he was a good scientist. If you happen to know italian evolutionists, they will clarify you the present Sermonti position on evolution debate, in Italy and elsewhere. That is, none, zilch, nada, niente, zero. Nobody pays attention to the old orthogeneticist anymore. Nobody but you creationists, I mean.
Marco Ferrari
Comment #28700
Posted by Les Lane on May 6, 2005 05:24 PM (e) (s)
Salvador-
When two students turn in 20pg papers and 98% of the words are the same, what’s the probability that they have independent origins, or could it be convergent thinking?
Does convergent evolution lead to convergent nucleotide sequences or only to convergent phenotypes?
How do you explain the chromosome similarities that Nick Matzke so kindly provided? Was the “intelligent designer” a plagiarizer?
Are you clear on the difference between science and apologetics?
Comment #28711
Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on May 6, 2005 05:50 PM (e) (s)
Charles Thaxton is a CHEMIST, not a biologist, or paleontologist. His expertise is on the origins of first lifes- from a chemists perspective.
That’s nice. Does he have a scientific theory of how the intelligent designer produced life, and an idea how to test it using the scientific method?
Why not?
Comment #28712
Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on May 6, 2005 05:52 PM (e) (s)
I liked, the NY times title, “Darwinism Goes on Trial”
So do I, since IDer/creation “scientists” have lsot every single Federal trial they have ever been involved with. Every single one.
Are you going to answer my four simple quesitons, Dr Cordova?
Let me remind you again what they were:
1. What is the scientific theory of intelligent design, and how do we test it using the scientific method?
2. According to this scientific theory of intelligent design, how old is the earth, and did humans descend from apelike primates or did they not?
3. what, precisely, about “evolution” is any more “materialistic” than weather forecasting, accident investigation, or medicine?
4. do you repudiate the extremist views of the primary funder of the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture, Howard Ahmanson, and if so, why do you keep taking his money anyway?
What, uh, seems to be the problem, Dr Cordova … ?
Comment #28713
Posted by Great White Wonder on May 6, 2005 05:54 PM (e) (s)
Salvador
I liked, the NY times title, “Darwinism Goes on Trial”, it originally was, “Hearings on Diluting Evolution” or something like that, until the media mastermind of the DI, Rob Crowther, protested on his blog around midnight Pacific Time. Several hours later, the AP, NY Times title was renamed to:”In Kansas, Darwinism Goes on Trial Once More”. DARWIN ON TRIAL!.
Either they changed it back or (could it be?) Salvador is full of shite.
Comment #28714
Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on May 6, 2005 05:55 PM (e) (s)
Therefore the human evolution has theoretical considerations which call the theory’s plausibitily into question.
Says you. <shrug>
But I’m curious once again, Dr. Most other IDers that I ask about humane volution give me the standard DI Two-Step, and refuse to talk about it on the grounds that “they haven’t studied it and aren’t an expert”. YOU, however, seem willing enough to talk about it. Does that mean YOU are the ID expert on human evolution —- the one that all the others would prefer that I talk to instead of them?
If so, I have another simple question for you (that, of course, you also won’t answer). It is: how, according to the scientific theory of intelligent design, did humans appear.
I look forward to your not answering yet another of my questions. In public.
Comment #28715
Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on May 6, 2005 05:57 PM (e) (s)
Thaxton is a big reason why intelligent design is marching ahead. His book in 1984, is viewed by Dembski as the beginning of intelligent design movement.
Uh, hey Dr Cordova, Dr Nelson just finished telling me that THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC THEORY OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
How exactly can you have an “intelligent design movement” if there is no “intelligent design theory” to “move” … . . …
Comment #28716
Posted by Salvador T. Cordova on May 6, 2005 06:00 PM (e) (s)
But let’s look at the effect that the hearings are having on the listeners. Let’s see how, these clueless creationists are really faring:
If ID, ahem, I mean “the controversy”, is taught in the public schools, how will the students who think naturalistic evolution is a fact react?
Christine Caffy, 15, carefully took notes on each speaker’s position. The ninth-grader from Bishop Seabury Academy in Lawrence had recently studied evolution in her biology class and came here to learn more about the debate.
Afterward, she was curious and confused.
“I came here thinking that I understood evolution, that I understood the facts,” Christine said. “But now, I don’t know what to think. Who’s right? Is the science that I’m learning really true?”
That sentiment infuriates scientists, a group of whom had gathered nearby. They insisted that though evolution should be open to criticism, the classroom was not the place for critiques based on religion.
Glorious!
In answer to your question, Christine, the “science” you are learning in class is “science falsely so called”.
The hearings have already borne fruit as we’ve enlightened one young mind. May the hearings lead to enlightenment of many more.
Comment #28720
Posted by FL on May 6, 2005 06:15 PM (e) (s)
Darwinists have never refuted the major points of (Drs Thaxton et al.) book.
And judging from the subsequent evo-responses, it honestly don’t look like Darwinists will be able to, for ~quite~ some time. Go figure.
FL
P.S……I also notice that nobody was able to show that Mr. Irigon offered ~any~ kind of scientifically appropriate/relevant questioning regarding PhD chemist Dr. Thaxton, as explained in my prior post. Duly noted, amigos; thanx.
Comment #28721
Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on May 6, 2005 06:34 PM (e) (s)
But let’s look at the effect that the hearings are having on the listeners.
Let’s.
IDers have been telling us for years now that (1) they have a scientific alternative to offer and (2) they are not creationists.
And what happens at Kansas? (1) they offer no scientific alternative at all, and (2) half the witnesses so far have testified that they reject ape-human ancestry and think the earth is 10,000 years old.
I think the BOE made a scheduling mistake —- I thought the ANTI- intelligent design witnesses weren’t supposed to be testifying yet.
<snicker> <giggle>
Hey Dr Cordova, in addition to lying to us when they claim ID is science and not religion, are IDers also lying to us when they claim ID is not creation “science”?
No need to answer, Dr. I know you won’t anyway. <shrug>
Comment #28722
Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on May 6, 2005 06:36 PM (e) (s)
If ID, ahem, I mean “the controversy”, is taught in the public schools
Nicely put.
Let me just make sure of something here —- you are on the PRO- id side. Right?
It’s rather hard to tell, what with you making IDers look like a bunch of lying fools, and all.
Comment #28724
Posted by Great White Wonder on May 6, 2005 06:44 PM (e) (s)
Christine Caffy
“I came here thinking that I understood evolution, that I understood the facts,” Christine said. “But now, I don’t know what to think. Who’s right? Is the science that I’m learning really true?”
Hopefully she won’t find out when she’s trying to get hired to work for me. That would be a shame.
Of course, there’s always room for one more not-too-slick sleazeball preachers like Salvador.
In fact, after this debacle in Kansas, the failed attempt in Alabama, and the inevitable Cobb County smackdown, the Disclaimery Institute is likely going to need some fresh faces to replace the asshats whose bogus “credibility” is all “used up.”
Comment #28726
Posted by Dan on May 6, 2005 06:47 PM (e) (s)
Christine Caffy, 15, carefully took notes on each speaker’s position. The ninth-grader from Bishop Seabury Academy in Lawrence had recently studied evolution in her biology class and came here to learn more about the debate.
Afterward, she was curious and confused.
“I came here thinking that I understood evolution, that I understood the facts,” Christine said. “But now, I don’t know what to think. Who’s right? Is the science that I’m learning really true?”
And thus we see the true mission of the creationists — to confuse, to obfuscate, to dissemble, to mislead. Congratulations to the Kansas Kangaroo Court, on the triumph of having miseducated a 15-year old. That’s really something to be proud of. It is this sort of “enlightenment” that we can look forward to on a statewide scale in Kansas once the creationists are done with their charade. What a sad day for science and education.
Comment #28728
Posted by Great White Wonder on May 6, 2005 06:51 PM (e) (s)
Board member Kathy Martin, of Clay Center, elicited groans of disbelief from a few audience members when she acknowledged she had only scanned the proposal, which is more than 100 pages. Later, board member Connie Morris, of St. Francis, also said she had only scanned it.
Martin said during a break: “I’m not a word-for-word reader in this
kind of technical information.”
Paging Ms. Christine Caffy! These are the sorts of details that will help you determine who’s right and who’s full of garbage.
Comment #28732
Posted by Salvador T. Cordova on May 6, 2005 07:15 PM (e) (s)
Les inquried:
Salvador-
When two students turn in 20pg papers and 98% of the words are the same, what’s the probability that they have independent origins, or could it be convergent thinking?
Plagerism occurs via a volitional act, not an accident. It indicates that someone deliberately wanted to copy a design.
“Covergence” is a “Darwinian epicycle” (to quote Sternberg, PhD PhD). It really is not convergence via evolution, it is convergence ordained by a common designer.
Les asked:
Does convergent evolution lead to convergent nucleotide sequences or only to convergent phenotypes?
It leads to “convergent” DNA as well as phenotypes.
Convergent evolution is prevalent at all levels of organismal design —from cell chemistry and microstructure to cell types, organ systems, and whole body plans.
Meuller, Newman, Willmer
Origination of Organismal Form
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 2003
From our beloved friend, John Calvert of the Intelligent Design Network:
From DDD 5
Converge means to “tend toward a common result or conclusion .” Biological convergence means “the recurrence of similar design solutions in different phylogenetic lineages, despite their absence in a common ancestor” [Gerd B. Muller and Stuart A. Newman, Origination of Organismal Form: Beyond the Gene in Developmental and Evolutionary Biology, (MIT Press 2003)] The eye of an octopus and that of a vertebrate are extraordinarily similar, yet they appear to have developed independently without a common ancestor.
and
The Molecules Converge
The convergence of antifreeze proteins and the multiple paths to a C4 photosynthesis can therefore be added to the other examples of molecular convergence mentioned earlier, such as the ‘five-site rule’ for vertebrate colour vision (CHapter 7) and probably also rhodopsin itself. As already noted, the combinatorial vastness of protein ‘space’ would, a priori, suggest that examples of molecular convergence would be very rare indeed: there are after all, so many alternatives. As it happens, however, there is a growing list of such examples. These include the proteases and peptidases, aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases, cytokinases, proteins associated with malaria, NADH dehydrogenase 1, lactate dehydrogenases, nicotine oxidaes, the evolution of polysaccharide lyases, light-harvesting proteins, proteins associated with cartilage (lamprins) and various elastic proteins, chitin-binding proteins, HIV-portease, antigen receptors in sharks, as well as biochemical processes such as thoses involved with nucleaotide binding by proteins, possibly DM domain factors involved with sexual determination, and signalling.
My understanding is we find some micro satellite DNA repeats out of place in all sorts of phylogenetic lines including man. That would be a novel area of research. We do have evidence of short tandem repeat size convergence in various lines. That’s good news for the design thesis. That is a key prediction of one of the most daring ID hypotheses known as “The Biotic Message” by Walter ReMine.
Or, as Foley (1993, 197) put it: “The best phylogeny is essentially the one that has the least convergence. And yet if cladistics is itself showing that convergence is rife in the real world of evolution, then the very assumptions of cladistics are open to question.”
Meuller and Newman, page 33
And proceeding,
Les asked:
How do you explain the chromosome similarities that Nick Matzke so kindly provided? Was the “intelligent designer” a plagiarizer?
The Intelligent Designer used a common design, with man as the crown jewel stuck somewhere inside the Linnaean Hierarchies as discovered by the pre-Darwinian, creationists and platonic essentialists. The similarities were part of pre-ordained plan to create a hierarchical relationship. The convergence was placed there to confound naturalistic interpretations. Those ideas proceed form ReMine’s scientific thoery.
Comment #28733
Posted by Salvador T. Cordova on May 6, 2005 07:21 PM (e) (s)
Great White Wonder asked about my claim:
Salvador wrote
I liked, the NY times title, “Darwinism Goes on Trial”, it originally was, “Hearings on Diluting Evolution” or something like that, until the media mastermind of the DI, Rob Crowther, protested on his blog around midnight Pacific Time. Several hours later, the AP, NY Times title was renamed to:”In Kansas, Darwinism Goes on Trial Once More”. DARWIN ON TRIAL!.
To which GWW commented:
Either they changed it back or (could it be?) Salvador is full of shite.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/05/education/06cnd-evolution.…
Apparently the author decided to have two copies of basically the same article under differnt titles. See the new improved version here, which proves I’m not full of shiite.
Comment #28735
Posted by Noturus on May 6, 2005 07:26 PM (e) (s)
The girl is curious. She will probably, unlike Kathy Martin, open a scientific journal at some point to see who is right, and science will win. Drawing public attention to themselves only works to the ID’ers disadvantage in the long run because they will be forced to state their true beliefs, make actual positive claims, and people who are actually willing to examine the evidence for themselves will be motivated to do so.
Comment #28737
Posted by Great White Wonder on May 6, 2005 07:26 PM (e) (s)
Salvador
“Covergence” is a “Darwinian epicycle” (to quote Sternberg, PhD PhD). It really is not convergence via evolution, it is convergence ordained by a common designer.
Sternberg is a baraminologist idiot. He drags his degree through the muck and smears honest people who deserve their Ph.D.s.
The real question is what do D. Jeffrey Meldrum, Ph.D, John A. Bindernagel, Ph.D, Gordon Strasenburgh, Ph.D, and John Green, Ph.D. have to say about “Darwinian epicycles”?
http://theufostore.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=T&Product_Code=K533-DVD
Comment #28738
Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 6, 2005 07:28 PM (e) (s)
Sal, I only have one question for you (in mutliple parts):
say, hypothetically, we stopped teaching evolutionary theory all together.
1. How would replacing it with intelligent design further our scientific knowledge?
2. What practical value does the assumption “goddidit” have?
these should be easier for you to answer, since you can’t seem to answer Lenny’s questions.
I’m even leaving you lots of lattitude in how you answer.
essentially, I am asking you what practical value your belief structure has.
Comment #28742
Posted by Great White Wonder on May 6, 2005 07:43 PM (e) (s)
Salvador
Apparently the author decided to have two copies of basically the same article under differnt titles. See the new improved version here, which proves I’m not full of shiite.
It’s not the same article.
It’s two different articles.
Two different articles with two different headlines… what a surprise…
As I recall, you said that the first article was “renamed”.
Conclusion: you are full of shite.
Surely you can admit to this misrepresentation on your part, unintentional or not.
Comment #28743
Posted by 386sx on May 6, 2005 07:47 PM (e) (s)
The Intelligent Designer used a common design, with man as the crown jewel stuck somewhere inside the Linnaean Hierarchies as discovered by the pre-Darwinian, creationists and platonic essentialists. [\i]
Yes, those were the days. When we knew lightning was made from toothpicks and puppy dogs could live for millions and millions of years and reading a hundred pages for “trial” was just a twinkle in their eyes. Where has mankind gone wrong, I wonder.
[i]The similarities were part of pre-ordained plan to create a hierarchical relationship. The convergence was placed there to confound naturalistic interpretations.
Oh to be confounded naturalistic interpretations! Those were the days…
Comment #28746
Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on May 6, 2005 07:54 PM (e) (s)
It really is not convergence via evolution, it is convergence ordained by a common designer.
Here’s the question I always ask whenever some IDiot blithers to me about “common design” (yes, I know that Dr Cordova is lethally allergic to answering direct questions, but hey, no harm in TRYING, right?):
One claim made by ID creationists explains the genetic similarity between humans and chimps by asserting that God supernaturally created both but used common features.
Let’s take this hypothesis and put it through the scientific method, shall we? (If you don’t like this particular hypothesis, feel free to substitute ANY super-natural or non-materialist hypothesis that you DO like).
1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
OK, so we observe that humans and chimps share unique genetic markers, including a broken vitamin C gene and, in humans, a fused chromosome that is identical to two of the chimp chromosomes (with all the appropriate doubled centromeres and telomeres).
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
OK, the proposed ID hypothesis is “an intelligent designer used a common design to produce both chimps and humans, and that common design included placing the signs of a fused chromosome and a broken vitamin C gene in both products.”
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
Here is ID’s chance to shine. What predictions can we make from ID’s hypothesis. If an Intelligent Designer used a common design to produce both chimps and humans, then we would also expect to see … … … …?
Fill in the blank.
And, to better help us test ID’s hypothesis, it’s most useful to point out some negative predictions —- things which, if found, would FALSIFY the hypothesis and demonstrate conclusively that the hypothesis is wrong. So, then —- if we find (fill in the blank here), then the “common design” hypothesis would have to be rejected.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.
Well, we seem to be sort of stuck on step 3. Help us out here, IDers. Give us some testible predictions from your hypothesis. Tell us how to go about testing them.
Or, would you rather than we just skip steps 3,4 and 5, and just take your religious word for it that your hypothesis must be true. Is that, after all, what ID is all about?
Take note here —- there are NO limits imposed here on the nature of your predictions, other than the simple ones indicated by steps 3,4 and 5 (whatever predictions you make must be testible by experiments or further observations.) You are entirely free to invoke whatever deities or supernatural causes that you like, in whatever
number you like, so long as you follow along to steps 3,4 and 5 and tell us how we can test these deities or causes using experiment or further observation. Want to tell us that the Good Witch Glenda used her magic non-naturalistic staff to POP these genetic sequences into both chimps and humans? Fine —- just tell us what experiment or observation we can perform to test that. Want to tell us that God didn’t like humans very much and therefore decided to design us with broken vitamin C genes? Hey, works for me — just as soon as you tell us what experiment or observation we can perform to test it. Feel entirely and totally free to use all the supernaturalistic
causes that you like. Just tell us what experiment or observation we can perform to test your predictions.
Let’s throw methodological materialism right out the window. Gone. Bye-bye. Everything’s fair game now. Ghosts, spirits, demons, devils, cosmic enlightenment, elves, pixies, magic star goats, whatever god-thing you like. Feel free to include and invoke all of them. As many as you need. Show us all how to apply the scientific method to whatever non-naturalistic science you choose to invoke in order to subject your hypothesis “genetic similarities between chimps and humans are the product of a common design” to the scientific method.
Comment #28749
Posted by bill on May 6, 2005 07:59 PM (e) (s)
Ohhhh, Lenny! Star Goats!
Does that mean we can start building a “B” Ark?
Can I help, huh, can I help? I’ll be in charge of the passenger list. Dibs!
Comment #28789
Posted by Arne Langsetmo on May 6, 2005 10:22 PM (e) (s)
STC: “Glorious!”
“… Another Gump for Gawd! We’re winning!”
Care to address the “Verrrryyyyy Doctor Reverend” Flank’s requests? Oh. I thought not…. *sigh*
Cheers,
Comment #28790
Posted by Ed Darrell on May 6, 2005 10:24 PM (e) (s)
Salvador wrote
I liked, the NY times title, “Darwinism Goes on Trial”, it originally was, “Hearings on Diluting Evolution” or something like that, until the media mastermind of the DI, Rob Crowther, protested on his blog around midnight Pacific Time. Several hours later, the AP, NY Times title was renamed to:”In Kansas, Darwinism Goes on Trial Once More”. DARWIN ON TRIAL!.
So, your claim is that the copy editors at the NY Times and Associated Press read Crowther’s blog?
No inflated egos in the ID ranks! What does hubris precede, in the Bible?
Comment #28794
Posted by Ed Darrell on May 6, 2005 10:36 PM (e) (s)
Mr. Cordova said:
In answer to your question, Christine, the “science” you are learning in class is “science falsely so called”.
I didn’t see any evidence her teacher was giving her creationism, Mr. Cordova. Where did you get that idea? Timothy was warned to stay away from vain babblings — you know, like those who babble against science standards they don’t know and haven’t read …
We already have the court determinations that it is creationism that is falsely called science — based on the sworn testimony of creationists, in the Arkansas trial. Who you tryin’ to kid?
Comment #28797
Posted by Arne Langsetmo on May 6, 2005 10:43 PM (e) (s)
Martin said during a break: “I’m not a word-for-word reader in this kind of technical information.”
Paging Ms. Christine Caffy! These are the sorts of details that will help you determine who’s right and who’s full of garbage.
Nah. Those are the sorts of details that tell the little tykes that they can skip the reading, cut and paste what they want from the Internet without any thought, and get a pass for it. Which is what they’ll do….
Cheers,
Comment #28798
Posted by Arne Langsetmo on May 6, 2005 11:03 PM (e) (s)
SJC: <i>”Plagerism [sic] occurs via a volitional act, not an accident.”</i>
Gawd makes boo-boos???? ROFLMAO.
Les asked:
“Does convergent evolution lead to convergent nucleotide sequences or only to convergent phenotypes?”
It leads to “convergent” DNA as well as phenotypes.
Ummmm, why????? What scientific theory of “intelligent design” can you put forth (and how would you test it) as to why such an “intelligent designer” would use the same codons (but only to the same extent that independent evidence shows evidence of relatedness) when others would do just as well? Is your “intellegent designer” a lazy ass? And how would you prove that? Or is She a cheap, non-union knock-off artist stealing someone else’s designs and peddling them on the streets in Shanghai? Once again, provide a method of proof for your hypothesis.
Alternative explanations are welcome, but you don’t seem to produce any, even when requested, so I’m proffering you these two.
Thanks in advance.
Cheers,
Comment #28802
Posted by Arne Langsetmo on May 6, 2005 11:42 PM (e) (s)
SJC: The convergence was placed there to confound naturalistic interpretations.
Not to belabour a point, but just how do you have convergence with no evolution? (I’d point out that evolution would predict convergence, but I suspect that concept is beyond your ken).
But, to get back to your point, are you saying that Mark Twain was right about the nature of Gawd??? Are we getting into “predictable hypotheses” here?
Cheers,
Comment #28806
Posted by Arne Langsetmo on May 7, 2005 12:17 AM (e) (s)
Let’s take this hypothesis and put it through the scientific method, shall we? (If you don’t like this particular hypothesis, feel free to substitute ANY super-natural or non-materialist hypothesis that you DO like).
1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
OK, so we observe that humans and chimps share unique genetic markers, including a broken vitamin C gene and, in humans, a fused chromosome that is identical to two of the chimp chromosomes (with all the appropriate doubled centromeres and telomeres).
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
OK, the proposed ID hypothesis is “an intelligent designer used a common design to produce both chimps and humans, and that common design included placing the signs of a fused chromosome and a broken vitamin C gene in both products.”
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
Here is ID’s chance to shine. What predictions can we make from ID’s hypothesis. If an Intelligent Designer used a common design to produce both chimps and humans, then we would also expect to see … … … …?
Fill in the blank.
Oh, I know, I know! Call on me!!! Let me answer for that: Here’s the hypothesis (and the obvious means of testing it): “Gawd works in mysterious ways!”
ROFLMAO. Why does Salvador even show his pathetic face around here?
Cheers,
Comment #28861
Posted by Engineer-Poet on May 7, 2005 02:51 PM (e) (s)
The convergence was placed there to confound naturalistic interpretations.
In other words, Salvador, you are claiming that the designer designs to deceive?
That the designer is a liar?
I just want that clarified. Yes or no will do.
Comment #28863
Posted by Joseph O'Donnell on May 7, 2005 03:01 PM (e) (s)
The hearings have already borne fruit as we’ve enlightened one young mind. May the hearings lead to enlightenment of many more.
Yes, they’ve managed to confuse someone with their blithering bullshit.
Something to be really proud of I’m certain.
Post a Comment
Trackback: "Waterloo" delayed? Again?
Posted by The Panda's Thumb on May 7, 2005 03:30 PM
"Waterloo" for evolutionists is delayed yet again...
Trackback: More from Kansas
Posted by The Politburo Diktat on May 8, 2005 11:35 AM
The Panda's Thumb has the latest. Among the gems, the Muslim (Turk) brought in by the Creationists who noted that among other reasons for "Muslims hating us," is our scientiifc naturalism." He's a member of BAV, Holocaust denial organization( the Armen...
Comment #28529
Posted by Great White Wonder on May 5, 2005 10:34 PM (e) (s)
Typical Creationist: C’mon, any idiot can look at a Euglena and a budding yeast and understand exactly why the budding yeast would have a cytochrome C more similar to humans. Even a high school student can understand that a Cytochrome C that was 100% homologous to humans wouldn’t work in a Euglena. Bicycle horns aren’t identical to car horns. That doesn’t mean they weren’t designed.
Scientist: <head explodes>