BPSDB

Creationist Jonathan Wells Moves Goalposts Up Own Ass

mikethemadbiologist — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 09:46:01 +0000

Creationist Jonathan Wells Moves Goalposts Up Own Ass

There's not much to add in terms of rebutting intelligent design creationist Jonathan Wells' latest misappropriation of science that Larry Moran, Orac, and Ian Musgrave didn't already write. But Wells' latest screed demonstrates just how pathetically low intelligent design creationism has sunk. An argument that stupid is a tacit admission of defeat.

Essentially, Wells' argument can be summarized as "if evolutionary biology isn't cited in every single biology paper EVAH!, then evolutionary biology isn't relevant to biology." Never mind that every step in genomic biology involves evolutionary biology, that's really the crux of his argument.

Wells' strategy can be described in more detail:

Find a biological structure or phenomenon that's kinda complex.
Declare said structure or phenomenon to be possible evidence of irreducible complexity.
Find papers about this irreducibly complex phenomenon that don't explicitly mention evolution.
Proclaim that TEH DARWINISMZ!! is irrelevant to biology.

Wells has now moved the goalposts to a ludicrous point (besides up his own backside): the fact that many researchers use evolutionary concepts (e.g., homology) and evolutionary methods (phylogenetics) isn't good enough. Now every paper has to discuss the evolutionary implications of the work, or 'Darwinism' is dead.

ID creationists are not serious people. Once again, their words have no intrinsic meaning: they are only tools to manipulate, as opposed to engage, other people.

mikethemadbiologist Fri, 03/07/2008 - 04:46

Tags

antibiotics

BPSDB

creationism

evolution

Fucking Morons

Propaganda

The War on Science

That would be John Corrigan Wells, usually referred to by his self- affected name "Jonathon" Wells.

He SHOULD be referred to by everyone as John "Moonie" Wells - not as an ad hominum attack, but simply as a more honest and correct label for the scum-sucking butt-licking, idiotic clap-trap spewing knucklehead that he is.

In its own perverse way this claim is somewhat consistent with IDist's behavior. Or at least their real thought process applied to their own belief system.

They claim that the elimination of organized prayer from schools, actually just the quieting of overt prayer, "excluded God".

Contemplate their POV. They see things entirely in black and white. If every school day and every evolution within that school day does not explicitly reference the existence of God then it is said to be "Godless". That is their perspective. You, or any event, are either explicitly and actively "Godly" or you are "Godless". There is no middle ground and there can be no tacit understanding, outside of active manifestations of faith, of accepted facts.

What we see here is a projection of their belief system into science. They feel the need and demand to wear their beliefs on their sleeve lest they be mistaken for being insufficiently Godly.

They assume that belief in Darwinian evolution is also a faith system only kept aloft by loud proclamation and hand waving. Somewhat like in the old Roadrunner cartoons where Coyote runs off the edge of a cliff but remains aloft by furious running motions and gesticulations, an act of will and triumph over cartoon gravity.

Of course science shows that, for the most part, if you run off the cliff it doesn't much matter if you keep running and redouble your efforts to stay aloft by force of will. Science isn't dependent on constant energetic hortatory exaltations of what is known for these fact to remain true. For science something is either supported or not supported by the evidence. Belief doesn't change the evidence or conclusion. Random and extraneous declarations of praise for Darwin on published research would only serve to waste more trees, or bandwidth.

Creationists don't, possibly can't, understand this. For them their faith and beliefs have to be aired out and waved in everyones face so that nobody will forget their desired identity. Long after the strong, quiet, durable faith that lies deep inside has died you can claim a strong faith by wearing a cross and using the word Jesus in every sentence and peppering your language with Biblical quotes.

They can't understand that evidence based science doesn't need to resort to such crass and useless measures. So they see a lack of explicit belief in the facts of science as a lack of belief.

It is a stupid point of view but it is consistent with their thought process.

Wells' middle name is Corrigan, hmmm?

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

I'm going to refer to him as Wrong Way Wells from now on...

Thirteen Steps to Being a Creationist Propagandist

mikethemadbiologist — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 09:53:56 +0000

Thirteen Steps to Being a Creationist Propagandist

Tristero came up with a list of thirteen things that the rightwing media does to craft its message. I've 'repurposed' and changed them for creationists. Here's the list with some commentary:

1. Highlight a quote from the opponent out of context from a speech or interview. (unchanged from original)

Do I even need to comment?

2. Use loaded terminology to describe evolution.

Describing evolution as 'godless', when, in fact, all scientific disciplines which, by definition, explain physical, not metaphysical, phenomena are 'godless.' They don't seem to have a problem with 'godless' geologists who drill for oil....

3. While attacking biologists, promote the idea that it is creationists who are under attack or marginalized, whether you actually are or not.

Compare the budgets of the Discovery Institute to NCSE. Disco wins. Granted creationists are marginalized among scientists and the Coalition of the Sane, but that's hardly a majority.

4. Give coverage--and thus credibility---to creationists groups and individuals with an overtly biased perspective, while granting some limited coverage to evolutionary biologists.

Hell, we just want to 'teach the controversy' and expose students to different perspectives (unless, of course, it involves sex ed...).

5. Attack people and their credibility, making them rather than the issue the focal point of discussion.

No comment needed here.

6. Find some vulnerability in the opponent and make that the focus for evaluating him or her.

This is why intelligent design creationism is so insidious: when we don't know the answer today, intelligent design creationists will seize this as evidence of an intelligent designer (no doubt the Great Vorlon). Until we figure it out (e.g., bacterial flagella, the 'partial' evolution of immune systems), then it's onto the the next unknown. Forward comrades!

7. To divert attention away from a pro-evolution opponent's attack on a creationist position or individual, discredit widely one piece of their argument as a way of discrediting their entire argument.

See the previous point.

8. Accuse the opposition of doing the same underhanded things to you that you yourself refuse to acknowledge doing to them.

Ben Stein. 'Nuff said.

9. Be the first to define an issue.

They're actually really good at this, mostly because there's always new stupid that they invent, and biologists are busy doing biology.

10. Expropriate scientific symbols and culture.

A creationist peer-reviewed journal comes to mind... Also, the whole idiocy about creationist science and baraminology is another manifestation of this. What tristero writes is particularly relevant:

Among the effects this tactic has is that it dramatically narrows the intellectual/cultural space for opponents to draw upon. Rhetorically, it blurs the meaning of these icons and symbols and marginalizes liberals by stripping them of any unambiguously positive references.

11. Conflation.

The whole substituting the origin of life with the evolution of organisms thingee.

12. Nit-picking (combined with changing the subject.)

In a public debate forum, the biologist is often expected to (or forced to) know everything, which is impossible. This presents an opening for nitpicking.

13. Flood the rhetorical space.

Tristero describes this perfectly (with a biological example, no less):

Pack a sentence with numerous falsehoods, misconceptions and biases so that it is difficult, if not impossible, to rebut them all within a reasonable time. For example (a hypothetical one, exaggerated to illustrate the technique): "Stem cell research, concocted and shamelessly promoted by the same Godless biologists that want to ban the Bible everywhere, has one and only one purpose, which is to kill innocent human babies." By the time anyone has corrected all the errors of fact, any conceivable audience open to persuasion has fallen asleep.

PZ has a wonderful (or terrifying, depending on your perspective) example of this here.

All done! Now you know how to be a creationist hack.

mikethemadbiologist Wed, 02/20/2008 - 04:53

Tags

BPSDB

creationism

Propaganda

Beautiful icon!

Nice summary, sad subject.

Creationist Propagandist? I thought the current term was cdesign proponentsist?

Beautiful icon!

Well, I'm curious why terms related to female genitals and hygiene are so commonly used as all-purpose insults.

I see you've written the entire piece using a godless alphabet, enumerating your points with a godless number system.

This could easily be repurposed for snake-oil marketing.

I could use this to sell my homeopathic Strontium-90 remedy. (Small print: Contains water. Does not contain strontium. Is not radioactive.)

Scott, your concerns were addressed the last time you brought this up.

Could you maybe get some new material now?

btw... good stuff, Mike. Glad to have you on board at BPSDB.

Excellent post.

Scott really just has to shut up about this. I thought he would have learned his lesson from the comments over at PZ's place.

erotikshop

gÃ¶ÄÃ¼s bÃ¼yÃ¼tÃ¼cÃ¼ler

seks shop

SEXSHOP

very thanks for article

The American Academy of Pediatrics versus antivaccinationist hypocrisy

oracknows — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 07:45:32 +0000

The American Academy of Pediatrics versus antivaccinationist hypocrisy

Three weeks ago, I wrote about some truly irresponsible antivaccination propaganda masquerading as entertainment that aired in the form of a television show called Eli Stone. This show, which portrayed its hero taking on the case of an autistic boy whose mother blamed his autism on thimerosal (going under the fictional name "mercuritol") in vaccines and scoring a $5.2 million settlement in the process. One consequence of this show was that the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) was shaken out of its inaction enough to draft a letter protesting the show and urging its cancellation of the show. Not surprisingly, this infuriated the mercury militia, leading David Kirby to write a truly ridiculous editorial to published in that repository of all things antivaccine, The Huffington Post. Clearly, the mercury militia and antivaccination movement were quite peeved that the AAP actually had the temerity to speak out against misinformation about vaccines. Even though its voice was tiny compared to a media behemoth like ABC, which is owned by Disney, even that little protest provoked a near-hysterical response.

Now, I'm happy to say, the AAP appears to be taking a more pro-active stance with regards to vaccine misinformation. Given that one of the most common tactics of the antivaccination movement is to present heart-rending stories of "vaccine-damaged" children. Indeed, this is a key strategy designed to obtain "compensation" through lawsuits and the autism omnibus. In response, the AAP has been circulating an e-mail seeking to fight fire with fire:

From: Susan Martin

Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 2:29 PM

To: SPOKESPERSONS@LISTSERV.AAP.ORG

Subject: parent spokespersons

Hello,

As part of our ongoing response to media stories regarding autism and vaccines, the AAP communications department is compiling a list of parents who support the AAP and are available for interviews. We are looking for two types of parents who could serve as spokespersons:

Parents of children with autism spectrum disorders who support immunization and who do not believe there is any link between their child's vaccines and his or her autism.

Parents of children who suffered a vaccine-preventable illness. This could be a parent who declined immunization, whose child became ill before a vaccine was available, or whose child was ineligible for immunization.

We are asking for your help identifying parents who would be good spokespersons. They do not need to be expert public speakers. They just need to be open with their story and interested in speaking out on the issue. We will contact candidates in advance to conduct pre-interviews, to offer guidance on talking to reporters and to obtain a signed waiver giving us permission to release their name.

If a parent were placed on our list, we would offer their name and contact information to select media. We hope to build a list of parents from a wide range of geographical areas.

As the Jenny McCarthy and "Eli Stone" stories illustrate, this issue is likely to recur in the national and local media. The AAP is committed to doing all we can to counter such erroneous reports with factual information supported by scientific evidence and AAP recommendations.

The anti-vaccine groups often have emotional family stories on their side. The ability to offer a reporter an interview with a similarly compelling parent who is sympathetic to the AAP's goals is a powerful tool for our media relations program.

Please contact me if you have any questions or to suggest a parent to interview.

Thank you,

Susan Stevens Martin
Director, Division of Media Relations
American Academy of Pediatrics
847.434.7131

Here's hoping that parents who understand the importance of vaccination and that science does not support Generation Rescue's claim that vaccines cause autism will contact Ms. Martin to show their support. Alternatively, they can contact Kevin Leitch.

Not surprisingly, in response to Ms. Martin's e-mail, in a breathtaking display of hypocrisy J. B. Handley, founder of the mercury militia group Generation Rescue, has posted a response on the Age of Autism blog entitled AAP Wags The Dog: Find Us Some Sick Kids Pronto!

After rehashing a bit of Ms. Martin's e-mail, Handley begins:

As the father of an autistic child and the leader of a national autism organization, I found myself sitting at my desk, my chin nearly hitting the floor, in stunned astonishment as I read your email. Where, exactly, has the AAP's humanity and moral compass gone?

Funny, but I've been asking that very question about J.B. Handley for the two and a half years since I first encountered him. After all, no misinformation about vaccines is too outrageous for his organization to purvey to the world, and he is utterly unconcerned about the effect that frightening parents into eschewing vaccination for their children can have in allowing vaccine-preventable diseases to return, as the MMR scare has done in the U.K. Moreover, he's petty enough to buy up domain names of bloggers using Blogspot who have had the temerity to criticize his stance or him. Still, let's see what he has to say. After bragging about how he can easily find many parents who blame vaccines for their children's autism (never mind why anecdotes are the most unreliable of evidence, that there is no scientific evidence that's the least bit convincing to an objective observer linking vaccines to autism, and that it's very, very easy for human beings to confuse correlation with causation) and how these parents contact his organization all the time, he goes on:

When Generation Rescue rented a booth at your national convention 2 years ago, we were stunned by how many AAP members came to our booth, quietly mentioned that they supported what we were doing, and encouraged us to keep fighting for the kids.

Let me repeat that: Hundreds of your members congratulated my organization for fighting for the kids!

Meanwhile, employees of the AAP like yourself have your head in the sand:

Where is the media story of the AAP sounding the alarm that the prevalence of autism continues to rise?

Where is the media story of the AAP digging into the growing number of stories of children recovering from autism?

Where is the AAP when parents return to the pediatrician and explain to the doctors they trust that their child disappeared after receiving multiple vaccines?

Where is the AAP to help protect our kids from a growing, devastating epidemic of Autism, ADHD, PDD-NOS, asthma, food allergies, learning disorders, and other autoimmune issues?

You are nowhere.

You are looking for the needle in the haystack parent with the autistic child who supports vaccines.

You are looking for the parent with the illness to exploit to scare the masses.

What you should be looking for, Ms. Martin, is your own soul, which you seem to have lost somewhere along the way. Worse, particularly if you are a parent yourself, you also seem to have lost the ability to listen to the parents and to put the needs of our kids first.

Shame on you, Ms. Martin, for planning such blatant manipulation of the media.

I almost gagged when I read that last line. After all, what is Generation Rescue's primary purpose for existence, if not to manipulate the media with stories of "vaccine-damaged" children and dubious stories of children who have "recovered" due to various unproven remedies that border on, if not cross the line into, outright quackery, such as chelation therapy? Generation Rescue proudly displays many links to advertisements that it has taken out in major newspapers:

USA Today 5/24/2005
The New York Times 6/8/2005
The New York Times 11/14/2005
USA Today 4/6/2006
USA Today 9/25/2007
USA Today 2/12/2008 (discussed by yours truly here)

Of course, the most amusing thing of all about this is that Generation Rescue got slapped down for its add 11/14/2005. The reason is that it listed all sorts of research studies that supposedly supported its belief that mercury in vaccines causes autism, even when those studies did not. If that isn't "media manipulation," I don't know what is. Indeed, some of the researchers whose work was cited wrote a letter to the NYT complaining about the ad and disassociating themselves from Generation Rescue's claims.

That's not the only misadventure Generation Rescue has had trying to turn science on its head as representing its viewpoint. Last summer, it even tried to generate science supportive of its claim that vaccines cause autism in the form of an absolutely awful, badly designed telephone survey masquerading as epidemiology that--surprise! surprise!--concluded that vaccination was associated with higher rates of autism. Prometheus, Kevin Leitch, and I, among others, deconstructed the terrible methodology of the study and pointed out that, even if its findings were valid (and, given the horrible methodology, they almost certainly were not, given that the study was a mere exercise in doing multiple comparisons and seeing if anything shakes out), the study showed that in some populations vaccines appeared to be protective against autism. Even so, given that this study was plainly commissioned for P.R., rather than scientific, purposes, it succeeded to some extent in that I still see it popping up on antivaccination and "alternative" medicine websites as "evidence" that vaccines cause autism. Indeed, just last week, it popped up on that repository of all things woo and quackery, Mike Adam's Natural News (formerly NewsTarget), as the "smoking gun" linking vaccination to neurological disorders. Despite the massive drubbing his study deservedly took in the skeptical blogosphere, J. B. Handley knows that pseudoscientific studies like this never die and, because they have the appearance of science (you know, all the "science-y" lingo), they will be given an undeservedly respectful hearing in the press. How's that for media manipulation? Or how about engineering a protest at the headquarters of the AAP and then touting it to the press?

Pot. Kettle. Black, Mr. Handley.

In addition, on the "Testimonials" page of the Generation Rescue website, there are a number of parent testimonials and "recovery videos." Moreover, the entire Age of Autism website is nothing, if not an attempt to "manipulate the media" in order to get the antivaccination viewpoint of Generation Rescue and similar group. If Handley is so disturbed about "manipulation of the media," perhaps he should look at his himself and his cobloggers:

All Hands on Deck: CDC Braces for Larry King Live by J. B. Handley
Buy One of These Tomorrow! (boosting the Generation Rescue ad)
Time to Rain on the Media Parade by Dan Olmsted
ABC Drama Takes on Vaccines and Autism by Kim Stagliano
Mom Calls Out AAP on ABC Letter
National Autism Association: Eli Stonegate by Wendy Fournier

Note how not a critical word is mentioned over stories that support the thimerosal-autism claim, whereas any attempt to counter such stories and present the science that has not found a link between vaccines and autism as "media manipulation" or "censorship," while one sends out e-mails to the EOH mailing list making jokes about parents of dead children in the service of mocking the AAP:

From: krstagliano

Date: Feb 16, 2008 6:57 AM

Subject: [EOHarm] Re: JB, email from AAP looking for sick kids

To: EOHarm@yahoogroups.com

Can you imagine the ad campaign? Dad sitting in a confessional proclaiming his remorse and grief for not vaccinating his child, while the bell tolls in the background. Then a quick shot over to a small pink casket with a dolly on top and mother on her knees sobbing in front of the altar......[]

Is that Kim Stagliano, one of the bloggers for Age of Autism, cracking such tasteless jokes? Why, I think that it just might be her!

People forget that vaccine-preventable diseases still kill and that unscientific fearmongering about vaccines has consequences. For example, in 2005 worldwide measles still killed 345,000. Indeed, measles has come roaring back in the UK since Andrew Wakefield stoked the fears of parents. In this world of international travel, we have managed to have outbreaks of vaccine preventable diseases like measles here in the U.S., as well, most recently in San Diego.

Finally, what galls me the most about J.B. Handley's letter to the AAP is how it denigrates the experiences of parents who have had children become ill or even die from vaccine-preventable diseases. Antivaccinationists frequently claim that those of us who try to counter their claims that vaccines damaged their children do just that when we point out the unreliability of anecdotes as a form of data to detect causation, given that correlation does not necessarily equal causation. Nothing could be further from the truth. Indeed, parents facing the daily struggles of raising an autistic child or any child with serious health issues have nothing but my admiration for their caring, and few things evoke as much sympathy in me as seeing a seriously ill child. Moreover, in the rare cases when vaccine injury can be demonstrated (or even appears more likely than not), I would heartily agree that generous compensation is indicated. Fortunately, such cases are indeed rare. With these observations in mind, I'd like to close with a couple of questions. Perhaps someone could answer them for me:

If it is not "exploitation" or "media manipulation" for J. B. Handley and his crew at Generation Rescue to use stories of "vaccine-injured" children in order to gain public support for their cause, why is it "explotiation" or "media manipulation" if the AAP tries to use stories of children injured or killed by vaccine-preventable diseases because they were not vaccinated? Are not the lives of children who are injured or die of vaccine-preventable diseases as important and worthy of publicity as those of children whom Generation Rescue considers to have been injured by vaccines? If not, why not?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Finally, I will admit that the thought of dueling stories of suffering children does make me a bit queasy. However, J.B. Handley and his organization routinely use them as part and parcel of their P.R. strategy. Handley knows that it's all about P.R., and for the most part he's unfortunately pretty good at crafting a compelling set of stories to forward his cause. It doesn't much matter to most people who see his anecdotes that there is no science behind his claims that vaccines cause autism and that chelation therapy and biomedical therapies can "recover" children. On the surface they appear compelling, and they definitely provoke an emotional reaction that predisposes to believe the antivaccination misinformation spewed by Generation Rescue. Very late in the game, the AAP has apparently finally realized that it is losing the P.R. battle, even though it has biomedical science on strongly its side. That's why I hope that sane parents will contact the AAP at the number listed in the e-mail to show support, while at the same time lament that such a request is even necessary.

oracknows Mon, 02/18/2008 - 02:45

Tags

Skepticism/Critical Thinking

Ahistorical garbage from the producers of Expelled

pharyngula — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:47:17 +0000

Ahistorical garbage from the producers of Expelled

The gang of prevaricators behind Ben Stein's Expelled movie had their own way of celebrating Darwin Day: they wrote a blog post that was a solid wall of lies and nonsense. In a way, I'm impressed; I'd have to really struggle to write something that was such a dense array of concentrated stupid, but for them, it seems to be a natural talent, allowing them to blithely and effortlessly rattle off a succession of falsehoods without blushing.

Let's begin with the beginning. You don't even have to be a biologist to be embarrassed by these wankers.

Until the late 1980's when the generic "President's Day" became the official holiday that subsumed them, America used to celebrate the birthdays of both George Washington and Abraham Lincoln.

As a result, "Darwin Day" has now supplanted Lincoln's Birthday in the popular imagination; both men were born on February 12, 1809.

We think that that is a shame.

I agree that the consolidation of "President's Day" did diminish awareness of Lincoln's birthday and reduced the appreciation of a president in exchange for a 3-day weekend, but Darwin had nothing to do with that, and it did not replace Lincoln with Darwin in the popular imagination — ask most people what the significance of 12 February might be, and you'll get a blank look. Darwin Day is a public relations effort to make people aware of the contributions of a great scientist, nothing more; there is no official holiday and no government recognition.

The title of Charles Darwin's book is not "The Origin of The Species." The full title seems shocking: "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." That last half of the title, often overlooked, sounds like it could come straight out of a Ku Klux Klan manual - which is precisely why Big Science rarely quotes the full title (even though Darwin was not referring specifically to "man" in his use of the words "favoured races."). Big Science is uncomfortable with even the suggestion that evolutionary theory might favor politically incorrect thinking.

Umm, no, that's not why scientists rarely state the full title: it's because saying "the Origin" is an awful lot shorter than saying "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." It's really that simple. When I introduce the book to my classes, I've got a presentation slide of the cover page and I state the title in full the first time, and then just say "the Origin" afterwards. I've only got an hour!

As they note, the book isn't about giving human races special privilege at all — he seems to go on and on about 'races' of pigeons, and is really using the word in an old-fashioned sense to refer to varieties. But hey, if a propagandist wants to tar biologists with a false equivalency to the Ku Klux Klan, they'll go ahead and do it.

Try to parse the last sentence in that paragraph now. Is he really trying to suggest one of the flaws of modern science is that we're trying to bury the notion of 'favoured races' because it is politically incorrect? I'm puzzled about the inconsistency of on the one hand accusing biologists of being akin to Aryan supremacists, while also accusing them of falsely promoting a PC notion of racial equality. But then nothing in their tirade is particularly consistent.

Darwinian evolution theory is a viable scientific theory. Author of The God Delusion Richard Dawkins has stated that Darwin's evolution theory has provided atheists with "intellectual fulfillment." If you grant that, then you must also grant that it has given a great many racists "intellectual fulfillment," too.

The Bible has also been a source of intellectual fulfillment to racists. So? In the case of atheism, we can say it provides fulfillment because the theory is a framework for studying the origin of life on earth that makes a creator god superfluous; it also provides a framework for studying biological diversity within a single species. When a scientist says something is intellectually fulfilling, it doesn't mean it slaps down an answer that fits his predispositions, it's because it provides a path for probing deeper. The Expelled losers are confusing what a real scientist finds valuable with the post hoc rationalizations of racists and Christians who are not open to real inquiry.

Here is how Darwin himself translated his own gloomy scientific theory into an even more disturbing worldview (from the Descent of Man)

'At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropological apes… will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state…even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla'.

Whenever I see an ellipsis in a creationist quote, I always reach immediately for the original source. So, just for the sake of completeness, here's the offensive paragraph from Darwin's Descent of Man.

The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest
allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species,
has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is
descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear
of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the
general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the
series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in
various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies-
between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridae- between the elephant, and
in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna,
and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of
related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not
very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will
almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout
the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor
Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The
break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it
will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may
hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon,
instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

It is entirely true that Darwin was a Victorian gentleman who carried the full measure of the prejudices of his time, and he did believe that non-Caucasian people (and actually, non-British people, and he probably had doubts about the Irish) were inferior. At the same time, he knew and described his personal relationships with, for instance, black people, and he regarded them as fully human and deserving of all the privileges of humanity, so he was actually a good step above a great many Christian gentlemen of his day.

Note also the context. He isn't advocating extermination, he's explaining the absence of extant intermediates: because breaks in a series inevitably occur, over time we'll see a widening of the differences between the surviving nearest neighbors in a lineage. He's describing a fact, not a desired end. He has also been shown to be right: the "savage races" of his day are being displaced and increasingly adopting the "civilized state" of today. Now, though, most of us wouldn't consider an Australian closer to a gorilla than a British civil servant is. Darwin was wrong about that (or perhaps now Ben Stein will berate me as being PC for considering that a false statement.)

Now, before you protest the analogy, consider that Professor Dawkins himself understands full well the analogy - to the extent that he'd prefer to just side step it:

In his "The Ancestor's Tale," he posed the Welfare State as a challenge to Darwinism. When asked by an Austrian journalist in an interview (Die Presse -July 30, 2005) how he would justify that challenge?

Dawkins: "No self-respecting person would want to live in a Society that operates according to Darwinian laws. I am a passionate Darwinist, when it involves explaining the development of life. However, I am a passionate anti-Darwinist when it involves the kind of society in which we want to live. A Darwinian State would be a Fascist state."

Or, in other words, "I really don't want to think about it!"

What a bizarre mangling.

The term "Darwinian" refers to a specific, selectionist mode of change in which some individuals die or suffer impaired reproduction, while others thrive and are fecund. It is a fact. It happens. When a gazelle out-runs a fellow member of the herd and allows the slower member to be eaten by a lion, that's Darwinian. When a tree drizzles a few toxins onto the ground to suppress other species from growing in its neighborhood, that's Darwinian. It's not pretty and it may not be the utopian paradise fantasists dream of, but it's a description of reality. It's how live evolved and is evolving on this earth.

Dawkins has a clear understanding that an is isn't an ought, something these amateur filmmakers need to learn. A Darwinian world is a harsh sort of place; it's perfectly legitimate for a product of evolution to aspire to a less dangerous situation and to work towards reducing the threats surrounding it. It is -10°F outside my window right now, but that harsh, measurable, empirical, irrefutable reality does not mean that I am obligated to strip off my clothes and go stand in the snow right now.

It's quite clear that Dawkins has thought about the implications of evolution quite a bit, unlike our simple-minded friends in the creationist movement.

The new film, ” EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed" does not presume to bury the theory of evolution… but it declines to praise it, either. As a worldview…no thinking person (certainly no moral person) can view a scientific theory of life based on an undirected, purposeless and random process as anything but pessimism. Certain people, and many scientists are drawn to pessimism, and thus pessimistic scientific theories. But that does not make their theories, or them, for that matter, any more attractive or intelligent.

Pessimism is a malady to be overcome, not encouraged - and it is certainly not a quality (or a theory) to be celebrated. As history teaches us - inherently pessimistic scientific theories, like all decadent theories (socialism, communism) eventually give way to those that actually work.

Evolution is pessimism? What kind of inane argument is that?

First of all, we don't judge the validity of a theory on whether it's conclusions are what we want to hear, or on whether it is pessimistic or optimistic. If that were the case, my optimistic hope that magic elves will scamper over and take care of some necessary maintenance on my house would be a useful and powerful idea. Scientists adopt ideas that work, which is why evolution is popular and Intelligent Design creationism is a dead end; they are drawn to utility, not pessimism.

As far as optimistic theories go, has this bozo ever read the Communist Manifesto? Communism is an incredibly optimistic idea — human beings are perfectable, societies are working towards an inevitable workers' utopia, etc. It's highly non-Darwinian, unlike capitalism, which is very Darwinian. It's like they don't even think their own arguments through.

They certainly don't read their critics' arguments through. Dawkins was just quoted as rejecting Darwinian ruthlessness as a just principle for society, yet here they go off ranting and raving about his pessimism, and the ultimate failure of evolution. It's insane.

The sixteenth President of the United States believed what our country's founders believed and that The Bill of Rights so clearly stated - that all men were endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That's a "theory" that works.

Like Darwin, Lincoln was a man of the 19th century. Here's something Lincoln did say:

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.

Squirm, Lincoln hagiographers, squirm. That's pretty much the standard background noise of the cultural beliefs of the period — everyone was putting everyone else in a hierarchy of superiority and inferiority on the basis of race. Lincoln was brought up in it and accepted it, as did Darwin; we don't judge them by how much they reflected the false prejudices of their society, but by how much they rose above them. Both Lincoln and Darwin were liberal for their time in their views on race, and they did their part to move culture forward.

Shall we quote Lincoln saying, "the white man is to have the superior position" and therefore declare that the aspiration of the Bill of Rights must be invalid and rejected? That's what these twits are doing by quoting fragments of Darwin's work, declaring, "Golly, that sounds like the Klan," and trying to discredit a major scientific principle.

Choosing to believe in but one scientific theory that effectively negates the whole notion of an intrinsic intelligence, a higher power, an intelligent designer - is fine, if pessimism is what floats your boat.

But that is your choice - or at least it should be a "choice" - for there is ample scientific evidence accumulating under the theory of Intelligent Design that presents an equally compelling - and much more optimistic scientific perspective on life's "origins."

It's odd how they constantly claim that there is growing scientific evidence for their theory of ID, but they never present any. I guess that's what they mean by calling ID an optimistic theory: they have hope that someday they'll actually have something constructive to propose.

But currently, Big Science is still enamored with only the gloomy, 150-year old theory originally developed by Darwin, the man who believed that "superior" races would eventually wipe out the "inferior" races. The problem is…the scientific theory justifying that repugnant view is being forced on all of us, to the exclusion of any other scientific theories, in our nation's public schools and taxpayer-funded government science institutions.

Abraham Lincoln ended slavery in America forever, to put to bed the whole notion of "inferior" races. And to be fair - the gentle Mr. Darwin himself did not favor slavery - even of those whom he described asbeing of the"savage races."

The 150-year old theory is not the modern theory. I wish we could get that through their heads: they could prove that Darwin was a baby-raping cannibal, and it wouldn't matter a whit to what we teach and study now. And seriously, get over yourselves: whining that Darwin was a racist does not turn your belief that invisible magic being(s) conjured life into existence into a scientific theory that should be taught in schools.

And you really have to be an ahistorical ignoramus to think that Abraham Lincoln ended the notion of "inferior" races. He subscribed to it. It's still an issue in our culture today.

Should the theory of Intelligent Design be allowed to be debated alongside Darwin's depressing 150-year-old theory of Evolution? Should scientists who want to explore Intelligent Design Theory be shunned, ostracized and even fired from the teaching profession?

If you have to ask the questions - perhaps you don't understand the difference between academic freedom… and the State-sponsored pessimism that is currently all but mandated by Big Science.

Science, even little-s science, only mandates that there be a an empirical foundation and open inquiry into what we're going to call science. Bad ideas that presume their conclusion and insist that evidence is not required for their proposals is not suitable for science classrooms. Show us what new evidence and ideas you're going to introduce and we'll think about it; whining about conspiracy theories and protesting that you have support but will not show it is not the answer.

"EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed" is a new film that will open your eyes to the scientific evidence that challenges Darwin's lurid theory of life. It reveals the distinctly non-scientific agenda that is driving Neo-Darwinism today. It also presents exciting new evidence accumulating behind the theory of intelligent design.

But most importantly - it will also remind you of the importance of maintaining the values of freedom and hope that Abraham Lincoln championed, and that some folks wish to deny us by fiat.

We stand squarely behind The Bill of Rights and our constitution's First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech.

Interesting. Every review I've read so far fails to mention this challenging scientific evidence for ID. When I get a chance to see it (hey, they interviewed me, even if they don't use much of the footage — are they going to send me a DVD?) I'll be sure to look for that evidence. It's not in any of their books, so it's a little odd that they'd pack it into fluffy little movie.

Don't you just love how they wrap themselves in the flag, the bill of rights, and the first amendment while trying to force their religious ideology into the schools? Patriotism really is the last refuge of the scoundrel.

pharyngula Wed, 02/13/2008 - 05:47

Tags

BPSDB

creationism

Categories

Social Sciences

from the Wikiplex.....

Here the term "races" is used as an alternative for "varieties" and does not carry the modern connotation of human races - the first use in the book refers to "the several races, for instance, of the cabbage", and Darwin proceeds to discuss "the hereditary varieties or races of our domestic animals and plants"

These people should have every medieval torture implement used against 'witches' and in the Inquisition until they confess their sins.

Bastards. Complete fucking fact-twisting, lying, douchebag fucktard bastards.

How can people be so utterly ignorant??

PZ, since your posting of this analysis, they have taken down their blog posting, and the link you supplied gives a "404 Not Found" error from within their website. Curious.

...aha, it's back now; I wonder if there were any edits? I didn't get to see the original.

I now know why I don't like cabbage. Because I'm a Darwinian racist.

If evolution is a "gloomy" theory, why is always the IDers who come off like whiny emo kids?

Yep, they've either been hacked or have realised too late their own babyish stupidity.

Welcome to the University of Happy Theories (Nappies supplied free of charge - we change them for you if you're not potty-trained yet).

The Lincoln quote is a doozy. When will the ID brigade i) realise that everyone was a racist in the mid 19th century and ii) Darwin's fancy book really only started the ball rolling. Unlike them, scientists don't just stick to the one book. The bits that are wrong get thrown out. New bits that are better get added. Science evolves, guys.

Still 404 error for me.

PZ, this post seems to be missing an icon.

Bob

Oh my...

They've updated the page to lead off with a quote from our illustrious host. They label PZ as a "fabulist", which apparently means storyteller or, more pejoratively, liar.

Pot, meet kettle...

Watch the trailer--in it they move from the bottom of the title of Origin to the top, thus showing the part with the "favoured races" first.

So this dishonesty is nothing new for them. And since they really are ignorant slobs, they know as little about language and history as they do about science.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

When I entered college as a freshman at 17, the very first class I took was Economics 1, and on the very first day of lecture, the very first time I set foot in a college lecture, the professor went over the difference between descriptive claims and normative claims, and how normative claims do not follow from descriptive ones.

Evolution is a descriptive theory. It describes reasonably well what happens in our world. Racism is a normative concept. Racists can certainly appeal to the descriptive claims of evolution, but that those claims support racism is a non-sequitur.

The fact-value distinction is not rocket science. I grasped it at 17. I don't get what's up with these IDiots/Cretinists that keep bringing up this tired "evolution = racism" nonsense that is easily refuted by someone who didn't fall asleep in his very first college lecture.

Then again, I didn't attend Bible University.

Yes, let us pick our fields of inquiry based on how happy they make us.

Germ theory of disease? Depressing!
Happy Dancing Elf theory of disease? Filled with joy (and dancing elves)!

Einsteinian Gravitational Theory? Too impersonal!
Gravity caused by Earth loving us soooo much theory? Happy!

This is a clear advancement in intellectual inquiry. Self esteem is the best criteria for judging a scientific theory.

Of course evolution is not gloomy to those of us who grew up as fundamentalists.

It's actually quite liberating (some have pointed out an important parallel between Lincoln and Darwin, that one liberated slaves, the other liberated minds--though Lincoln had a mind liberated of Xianity, he didn't have great ammo against it). I'm not, of course, saying that MET is atheistic in a way that physics is not, but it is contrary to the literalism and puritanical ideals in the Bible.

Furthermore, as I made the point yesterday on another thread, it began a whole new set of ideas about how complex orders emerge, and about how information interacts in laterally, rather than being imposed top-down.

And whatever Darwin's Victorian prejudices, it remains the fact that evolution, coupled with the rest of biology, is what scientifically demolishes the categories and ranks that have been used to prop up racismm, and it has demonstrated that we're pretty damned close to everyone genetically.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Condensed version: "If it feels good, believe it!"

Even more condensed version: "BAAAAAAAWWWWWW!!!"

As a worldview . . . no thinking person (certainly no moral person)
can view a scientific theory of life based on an undirected, purposeless
and random process as anything but pessimism.

Guess I'll just go to work and hang out with my thoughtless, amoral (or is it immoral?) pessimistic friends.

No - it's still there - bottom left under the Recent posts heading (or maybe they've just forgotten to remove that copy of it?)

The sixteenth President of the United States believed what our country's founders believed and that The Bill of Rights so clearly stated - that all men were endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Sorry, not in The Bill of Rights, try The Declaration of Independance

Oops sorry - lot of folks posted while I was looking. The above was in reply to #4.

It really is depressing quite how ignorant and deluded some people can be.
One of my housemates, a christian, does not believe in evolution, and yet most of the time appears to be perfectly intelligent. Religion has a lot to answer for...

When the creationists write "150-year old theory" what is it they are trying to get across? That any science that old is no longer useful? Or is it that Darwinian theory is too new and we need a theory with foundations going back several thousand years?

It gives a 404 error using PZ's link...here's the thread

http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/2008/02/07/we'll-take-lincoln-day-over…

"Note also the context. He isn't advocating extermination, he's explaining the absence of extant intermediates: because breaks in a series inevitably occur, over time we'll see a widening of the differences between the surviving nearest neighbors in a lineage."

Ya gotta love the hypocrisy. I mean, the way they talk, it's like God never advocated extermination and genocide.

i tried that link you sent me, and it gives me a 404 error.
you think the ignoramuses caved under your attack and removed that post from their page?

on the other hand, IDiots learning from rational arguments made against their side doesn't seem likely, does it?

I love the whole "Big Science" thing they've got going on there. As if there were some kind of mega-buck-funded think-tank behind the whole thing... oh, wait... I get it now - projection.

However, I am a passionate anti-Darwinist when it involves the kind of society in which we want to live. A Darwinian State would be a Fascist state."

Or, in other words, "I really don't want to think about it!"

No, it's rather more like Dawkins understands much about how we happened to evolve as a social species. We could not be a social species and have a truly "Darwinian State."

The wolverine is what lives in a fairly Darwinian state (not State, of course), with some necessary exceptions (mating, mother caring for young). That is one reason wolverines haven't come up with science.

What's the excuse for these social beings never coming up with, or even comprehending, science? Could it be their Darwinian will to power, which I have to admit is not something I can absolutely condemn, but can for various reasons, including the fact that our nation will be likely to decline if we become too much like Algeria or some other theocratic bastion of anti-science.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Another glaring error: the Bill of Rights does NOT state that "all men were endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." That's a paraphrase of a passage from the Declaration of Independence.

This isn't just a nitpick; the fact that the Constitution contains no references to God or a Creator at all is a pivotal argument against the notion that America was founded as a Christian nation, because the Constitution is the overriding law of the land, whereas the Declaration is simply a historical artifact, with no legal force.

Should scientists who want to explore Intelligent Design Theory be shunned, ostracized and even fired from the teaching profession?

Yes.

The evo v. ID debate isn't about emphasizing one set of facts over another one, or about competing models. It's about whether you understand how science works. Proponents of ID may as well have a tattoo on their foreheads that says "I don't get it."

Sounds to me like someone should make a film of rebuttal

#15 wrote: "Of course evolution is not gloomy to those of us who grew up as fundamentalists."

Nicely put. I wonder if the 'Expelled' producers consider this sermon to be a fount of positivity?

Every time I see the 'No Intelligence Allowed' banner, I think of the irony.

The problem is...the scientific theory justifying that repugnant view is being forced on all of us, to the exclusion of any other scientific theories, in our nation's public schools and taxpayer-funded government science institutions.

Utter bullshit. MET doesn't justify racism at all. Had they any evidence that it did (other than their retarded notion that a book which was not peer-reviewed tells us what evolutionary theory "is"), I'm sure they'd have presented it, rather than just lying.

And what other "scientific theories" are there to explain evolution? Are you pushing Lysenkoism? You may as well, it's as well-supported (zero, like ID), and requires as much anti-freedom governmental intervention to implement, as ID.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Thank goodness those pessimistic systems like Communism and Socialism have fallen to a system that really works: free-market Capitalism!

Heaven forbid anyone should try replacing that with something like Darwinism based on cut-throat competition in which the weak are destroyed by the strong, leading to all striving to become stronger and...

Oh, wait.

Now, the link I used gives a 404; they've simply blocked incoming traffic from this site to the post.

Now that's intellectual honesty and strength of conviction.

What a worthless bunch of fuckwits.

You can have hours of fun with Lincoln and the ID crowd, beyond Lincoln would be considered a racist today there is the whole bit the Lincoln was certainly a panthiest, if not an outright atheist.

These ID bastards will never stop lying, will they? They just don't seem to care how erroneous or deceptive their statements are, and the fact that they are broadcasting nothing but gleaming ignorance will do nothing to slow them down.

Most normal human beings of conscience would be embarrassed at the open displays of dishonesty and shoddy scholarship as we see coming from the ID crowd.

Gyaagh! I hate these slimy, little fuckers.

At 12:48 p.m. EST, I get a 404 Error too.

I think they must have taken it down, possibly for some frantic rewriting.

It would be nice to know WHO, specifically, wrote that mess. And maybe Ben Stein should consider hiring somebody brighter to write for him.

The Bill of Rights so clearly stated - that all men were endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That's a "theory" that works.

That isn't a theory at all, and the scare quotes only indicate that you intended to suggest to idiots that it is even though you know that it is not.

And as Geoff notes, the bit about "The Creator..." is not in the Bill of Rights. Lincoln did refer back to the Declaration (and wasn't dumb enough to confuse Constitution and Declaration) in his speeches, nevertheless.

I suspect that they're claiming it is in the Bill of Rights not just because they're ignorant IDiots, but also because they'd like to use it to enforce their "right" to inject their theocratic notions into science. They wish to appeal to the Bill of Rights for "free speech" in science, the kind that would, of course, destroy science as a meritocratic discipline with standards requiring evidence.

They are just stupid, they're also sinister.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

They are just stupid, they're also sinister.

Oops, that was supposed to be, "They aren't just stupid, they're also sinister."

Glen

Lol, "we believe in free speech"

Then they go around and block traffic from this website

/loves me the smell of Christian hypocrisy in the morning

Ben Stein and his cronies should re-read the fucking Bill of Rights. Is it the stupidity that makes them creationists, or creationism that makes them stupid?

I think they should keep it up. They're a great argument for atheism. Surely bald, wild-eyed hooting stupidity isn't the best that the God of the universe can muster.

They can't even get their recent American history correct. Legislation enacting President's Day was passed in 1968 and went into effect in 1971, not "the late 1980s" as they state.

For those having trouble accessing, (someone already said this but) the post is still listed under "Recent Posts." Scroll down to the bottom of the page.

It also presents exciting new evidence accumulating behind the theory of intelligent design.

If so, that's an absolute first.

We've been asking for evidence from you lying IDiots forever, and all we've received in return are more lies.

Present your evidence, even if you're not following standard protocol in doing so. We'll welcome it if it exists, and if you actually do something other than whine for once.

But if you'd like to make an unfriendly wager about whether the film actually does present any such evidence, I'll bet everything I have that it doesn't. The judges have to be those who actually do science, however, not necessarily evolutionary biologists, yet certainly people who care about evidence.

Even the friendly reviews of Expelled never mention evidence in favor of ID being presented, and indeed, the first review by a newspaper said the film doesn't even tell us what ID is. So I'm at a loss how evidence for something the which is not explained or defined could be presented, at least in any sensible manner.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Tried several times, less than a minute ago to get in;
404 Error still there. Probably a good thing, otherwise
I would have really vented with the most ascerbic crap
I can utter, and then PZ would not post as happened on an
earlier statement. This religious crap boils my blood to no end and I believe in responding in kind, to the
consternation of others who are not so easily perturbed
with this ranting insane muck.

In their Recent Posts, I clicked "We'll take Lincoln Day ..." and the following loaded at about 12:50 EST.

---------- BEGIN THEIR POST ---------------

Until the late 1980's when the generic "President's Day" became the official holiday that subsumed them, America used to celebrate the birthdays of both George Washington and Abraham Lincoln.

As a result, "Darwin Day" has now supplanted Lincoln's Birthday in the popular imagination; both men were born on February 12, 1809.

We think that that is a shame.

The title of Charles Darwin's book is not "The Origin of The Species." The full title seems shocking: "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." That last half of the title, often overlooked, sounds like it could come straight out of a Ku Klux Klan manual - which is precisely why Big Science rarely quotes the full title (even though Darwin was not referring specifically to "man" in his use of the words "favoured races."). Big Science is uncomfortable with even the suggestion that evolutionary theory might favor politically incorrect thinking.

Darwinian evolution theory is a viable scientific theory. Author of The God Delusion Richard Dawkins has stated that Darwin's evolution theory has provided atheists with "intellectual fulfillment." If you grant that, then you must also grant that it has given a great many racists "intellectual fulfillment," too.

Here is how Darwin himself translated his own gloomy scientific theory into an even more disturbing worldview (from the Descent of Man)

'At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropological apes... will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state...even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla'.

Now, before you protest the analogy, consider that Professor Dawkins himself understands full well the analogy - to the extent that he'd prefer to just side step it:

In his "The Ancestor's Tale," he posed the Welfare State as a challenge to Darwinism. When asked by an Austrian journalist in an interview (Die Presse -July 30, 2005) how he would justify that challenge?

Dawkins: "No self-respecting person would want to live in a Society that operates according to Darwinian laws. I am a passionate Darwinist, when it involves explaining the development of life. However, I am a passionate anti-Darwinist when it involves the kind of society in which we want to live. A Darwinian State would be a Fascist state."

Or, in other words, "I really don't want to think about it!"

The new film, " EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed" does not presume to bury the theory of evolution... but it declines to praise it, either. As a worldview...no thinking person (certainly no moral person) can view a scientific theory of life based on an undirected, purposeless and random process as anything but pessimism. Certain people, and many scientists are drawn to pessimism, and thus pessimistic scientific theories. But that does not make their theories, or them, for that matter, any more attractive or intelligent.

Pessimism is a malady to be overcome, not encouraged - and it is certainly not a quality (or a theory) to be celebrated. As history teaches us - inherently pessimistic scientific theories, like all decadent theories (socialism, communism) eventually give way to those that actually work.

The sixteenth President of the United States believed what our country's founders believed and that The Bill of Rights so clearly stated - that all men were endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That's a "theory" that works.

Choosing to believe in but one scientific theory that effectively negates the whole notion of an intrinsic intelligence, a higher power, an intelligent designer - is fine, if pessimism is what floats your boat.

But that is your choice - or at least it should be a "choice" - for there is ample scientific evidence accumulating under the theory of Intelligent Design that presents an equally compelling - and much more optimistic scientific perspective on life's "origins."

But currently, Big Science is still enamored with only the gloomy, 150-year old theory originally developed by Darwin, the man who believed that "superior" races would eventually wipe out the "inferior" races. The problem is...the scientific theory justifying that repugnant view is being forced on all of us, to the exclusion of any other scientific theories, in our nation's public schools and taxpayer-funded government science institutions.

Abraham Lincoln ended slavery in America forever, to put to bed the whole notion of "inferior" races. And to be fair - the gentle Mr. Darwin himself did not favor slavery - even of those whom he described asbeing of the"savage races."

Should the theory of Intelligent Design be allowed to be debated alongside Darwin's depressing 150-year-old theory of Evolution? Should scientists who want to explore Intelligent Design Theory be shunned, ostracized and even fired from the teaching profession?

If you have to ask the questions - perhaps you don't understand the difference between academic freedom... and the State-sponsored pessimism that is currently all but mandated by Big Science.

"EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed" is a new film that will open your eyes to the scientific evidence that challenges Darwin's lurid theory of life. It reveals the distinctly non-scientific agenda that is driving Neo-Darwinism today. It also presents exciting new evidence accumulating behind the theory of intelligent design.

But most importantly - it will also remind you of the importance of maintaining the values of freedom and hope that Abraham Lincoln championed, and that some folks wish to deny us by fiat.
-------------------- END OF THEIR POST --------------------

I wonder if the IDiots know that in the Commonweatlth of Virginia, at least when I lived there, if not still today, Presidents Day was called "Washington, Lee, Davis" day. No Lincoln in there...

Surely bald, wild-eyed hooting stupidity isn't the best that the God of the universe can muster.

Apparently their God is fucktard too.

As a result, "Darwin Day" has now supplanted Lincoln's Birthday in the popular imagination,

It's hard to believe that they still sometimes come out with something that just absolutely stuns me.

Should the theory of Intelligent Design be allowed to be debated alongside Darwin's depressing 150-year-old theory of Evolution?

I'll take our 150-year-old theory over your 4,000-year-old one any day.

Certain people, and many scientists are drawn to pessimism, and thus pessimistic scientific theories.

God DAMN, I wish I could be paid to just prattle on for thousands of words.

"Dawkins has a clear understanding that an is isn't an ought"

Oh don't be such a downer, man. Watch Expelled, and you can turn your ought into an IS!

To your last sentence, PZ, I can only reply with a quotation from Ambrose Bierce's The Devil's Dictionary:

PATRIOTISM, n.Combustible rubbish ready to the torch of any one ambitious to illuminate his name.In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of a scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first.

Dale:

Sounds to me like someone should make a film of rebuttal

David Attenborough's next project is a series on Evolution. Over on this side of the pond we are part way through his latest Life In Cold Blood, about amphibia and reptiles. These series are usually made in partnership with PBS or another North American channel so I am sure it will be coming to a TV near you soon. As the Guinness ads say, good things come to those who wait.

@26, The "Big Science" bit cracked me up too. Every lab I've worked in has been the equivalent of a small independent business struggling in a very competitive field. There's certainly no monolithic organization the equivalent of Exxon and "Big Oil" or Detroit's "Big Three." What are their criteria for big? The budget and scope of this moronic movie dwarfs that of almost any science lab... so does that make them "Big Ignorance?"

"Darwin's lurid theory of life."

Lurid! I mean really, how do you relate to someone who writes like that? He must be a KKK member. Or a repressed scuba fetishist. Certainly not a sane and rational member of human society.

Everything like this that comes out of the Expelled crowd or the Disco Institute should be accompanied by a soundtrack of endless repetitions of Laurie Anderson's "Big Science." I quote:

Big Science. Hallelujah.
Big Science. Yo-de-lay-he-hoooooooooo.

I haven't read all their posts, but I think my favorite, of the ones I did read, item 15. One person had posted the same Lincoln quote above, and someone else replied,

"Weather intentional or not, Lincoln ended the brutality of slavery and made the way for equality. Quote mining is all well and good, but in this case, I'm afraid you'll find no footing."

Quote mining. I love that.

Okay, one more and then I swear I'll get back to work.

"Sounds to me like someone should make a film of rebuttal"

I think the Nova documentary on the Dover trial serves pretty well. And then there's that Bill Maher documentary that will be coming out around the same time. Not about evolution, but I have to imagine that religious supression of science will be in there somewhere.

"so does that make them "Big Ignorance?""

Pretty good, but after this last screed, I'm more inclined to think of them as "Big Durrrrr"

PZ: That icon for blogging on pseudo-scientific, um, matters, absolutely made my day.

As far as the 404 error goes, it looks like the difference betweeen a ' and ' in "we'll-take" in the url (the latter being correct, the former being what PZ's link contains).

Doh, the difference between those quotes showed up in the preview, but not in the actual post. The first character is Unicode character Apostrophe U+0027, the second is Right Single Quotation Mark U+2019.

As far as the 404 error goes, it looks like the difference betweeen a ' and ' in "we'll-take" in the url (the latter being correct, the former being what PZ's link contains).

That's not it. If you look at my link (comment 23) it contains "we'll take" and still leads to a 404 error. It's traffic from here that's the target.

Hmmm I got a 404 for the link to that blog entry...
But your dissection of it was better to read anyway, I'm sure.

And now to post something actually on topic. An analogy I thought of the other day is how Newtonian gravity doesn't dictate we must fall at 9.8m/s2, meaning we shouldn't invent parachutes. :-p

#42 wrote: "Ben Stein and his cronies should re-read the fucking Bill of Rights. Is it the stupidity that makes them creationists, or creationism that makes them stupid?"

Probably been said somewhere before, but I suspect this proves that the title "Expelled" refers to high school expulsion, or at least suggests that the expulsion should have happened at a far earlier level...

Big Science? I did a genuine LOL at that.

I think I'll start calling Stein, the DI, etc. Big Creationism, and thinking about it, that is a pretty appropriate name for them.

That's not it. If you look at my link (comment 23) it contains "we'll take" and still leads to a 404 error. It's traffic from here that's the target.

Your link still contains an apostrophe, not a right single quotation mark (the curly version). I think the blogging software may just be turning the curly quote into an apostrophe (it did on my original comment).

I'm actually looking forward to the release of the movie. I'm sure there won't be even an attempt to provide evidence and I'm hoping the reviewers will point that out.

That last half of the title, often overlooked, sounds like it could come straight out of a Ku Klux Klan manual...

So in order to demonstrate that religion is good and science is evil, they compare Darwin's use of the phrase "favoured races" (which they admit did not refer to humans), to the writings of a Christian terrorist organization that used the Bible to justify threatening, assaulting, and even murdering black and jewish humans?

Do they really think that this is a good argument for religion?

I guess this means that Denmark will soon be amBushedliberated by our dear BenSteinian overlords.

We still talk about races in reference to breeds of cats, dogs and horses. Cows too. (But not cabbages, I think. Mmmmmmh - broccoli ...)

Maybe the ellipsis in the link is the problem, not the apostrophe. Testing...

Their post has convinced me: we must start teaching Lincolnism as an alternative theory in biology class.

I'm coming from a computer science background, so take this with a grain of salt. It seems to me that Darwin has nothing to do with any of this. We know about DNA and what it does. We know how it gets carried from generation to generation. We know that changing it can change what chemicals appear in a cell. Even without Darwin it seems pretty obvious that this mechanism will result in optimizations of fecundity. In fact, modeling this mechanism, even for short periods, results in a fantastic ability to search for all kinds of optimizations.

Darwin may have been the first to notice what was happening, but he is far from being any kind of cornerstone for why we know natural selection causes evolution.

I think what the followers of ID really are denying is the existence of emergence. Biology is probably the one area where emergent properties are searched for and exploited naturally, so there is an abundance of 'things to be explained'. But science is all about finding the rules behind emergence and explaining each on a case by case basis.

There's a more substantial point lurking under the claim that ID is 'optimistic'. Since ID abjures any claim about God's aims and values (unlike, say, Paley), there is no way to show that facts about life that horrified Darwin (parasitic wasps and cats playing with mice, for instance) count against their claims of design. This is a key element in the emptiness and untestability of their claim of design. So how can they claim the title of 'optimists'? For all they know, the designer is utterly indifferent, or even malevolent. (Morris, if I recall rightly, rejects theistic evolution in part because of the terrible history of suffering and death it requires-- peculiar, for a Xian who accepts the existence of hell, but nevermind...) Some optimist-- too optimistic to even notice how pessimistic his views are...

I think I'm going to start calling it "Expelled: No Intelligence Currently Present"

http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/2008/02/07/we%e2%80%99ll-take-lincoln-…

I get the Stein post with the above link.

There's a more substantial point lurking under the claim that ID is 'optimistic'. Since ID abjures any claim about God's aims and values (unlike, say, Paley), there is no way to show that facts about life that horrified Darwin (parasitic wasps and cats playing with mice, for instance) count against their claims of design. This is a key element in the emptiness and untestability of their claim of design. So how can they claim the title of 'optimists'? For all they know, the designer is utterly indifferent, or even malevolent. (Morris, if I recall rightly, rejects theistic evolution in part because of the terrible history of suffering and death it requires-- peculiar, for a Xian who accepts the existence of hell, but nevermind...) Some optimist-- too optimistic to even notice how pessimistic his views are...

Well, on the bright side concerning ID, despite being an utterly vacuous "explanation," at least it is more optimistic than the YEC's explanation that everything is wrong and dies because of Adam and Eve's fault.

Of course, that's like a starving man choosing the wax apple over the dumbcane.

G Felis @ # 51 I have Ambrose Bierce's Devils Dictionary
and am not content with his "Excommunication".

My description would be "Banishment From Fantasyland"
All these insane rituals of all religions can best be
summed up with "Everlasting Insane Bullshit"

...there is ample scientific evidence accumulating under the theory of Intelligent Design that presents an equally compelling - and much more optimistic scientific perspective on life's "origins."

"Here's something to ponder long and hard: Malaria was intentionally designed. The molecular machinery with which the parasite invades red blood cells is an exquisitely purposeful arrangement of parts. C-Eve's children died in her arms because an intelligent agent deliberately made malaria, or at least something very similar to it."

=LOL

Reminds me of Chrsitopher Brookmyers term for beliefs that people will continue to cling to despite a lack of evidence and the presence of alternative, feasible explanations - 'attack of the unsinkable rubber ducks!'

windy wrote: "Their post has convinced me: we must start teaching Lincolnism as an alternative theory in biology class."

Is that the theory where only the tallest men with the biggest hats survive? :)

Self-pitying, lying, bigoted, anti-science dickheads.

"Is that the theory where only the tallest men with the biggest hats survive?"

or maybe they are sexually selected?

@#1: "the several...races of the cabbage.."

Would Ben Stein belong to one of those? Maybe ID theory has just invented "Stein's slaw..."

#2: "These people should have every medieval torture implement used against 'witches' and in the Inquisition until they confess their sins.
Bastards. Complete fucking fact-twisting, lying, douchebag fucktard bastards."

I understand your anger, but we must hold ourselves to a higher standard, especially as we can get by on facts alone to win our case.
Besides, a more humane (and funny) treatment would be a brain implant that caused an ice cream headache whenever a certain theshold of stupid was surpassed (not my idea, came from a standup comic, but not sure the name I should hat-tip to)

P.S. As time goes by, the people at the DI seem less and less concerned with hiding their Christian roots, evidenced both by an increased number of "creator" quotes, the Darwin vs God framing of Expelled, and perhaps most damning: if you are considering all possible intelligent design scenarios, why is evolution even a problem?

If we are in a pocket universe created by an advanced species, it would make sense to develop life in that pocket universe via evolutionary processes. If an alien species "seeded" the planet Earth (a la Star Trek: The Next Generation), we would still develop from that genetic material via evolution. If aliens found a primate-filled Earth and tweaked us into humans, evolution would still have gotten us to the primate point, and would still be in effect now across the natural world.

Indeed, even for some sort of deity in the traditional sense, why would such a being not use evolution to develop living organisms? There is no contradiction between evolution and some sort of god, just between evolution and the specific God that the IDers certainly absolutely are not advocating or even mentioning (wink wink)

"or maybe they are sexually selected?"

Awesome! I'll so owe you a beer if you can get that link onto the comments page at Expelled!

Naw, expelled refers to how they came up with their "argument."

It was shot out of an orifice accompanied by a deep grunt.

Hitler said that the theory of eviloution allowed him to be an intellectually fulfilled genocidal maniac.

If you grant that, then you must also grant that it has given a great many racists "intellectual fulfillment," too.

I also grant that sex has given a great many racists "physical fulfillment."

Here's my take:

The creationists always use their conscious/unconscious religion frame for this debate. They use it consciously as a means of devaluing something they view as being in direct opposition to their mythical beliefs. They use it unconsciously when they think that science amounts to a religion because the workstyle of a scientist is tied to the lifestyle, and the work many times informs the life aspect.

If you think about how people steeped in science careers operate, and then compare that to say, a brick layer, a scientist's lifestyle is very much related to his work. Brick laying you can just put down at the end of the day. Science is relentless inquiry and examination, reading, researching, etc.

Then, consider that the life of a preacher is at least in some functional way somewhat similar. A life usually alone thinking about and talking about one thing and one thing only, devoting your life to one specific purpose.

Now, the material benefit of a scientist's life's work versus a preacher's I'll leave for another time. But it seems to me the creationists find it easy to think of scientists as "evil" preachers because the product of scientific work informs real life. Thus in this way they see it similarly because they take what preachers say to inform their lives. Where the difference comes in is that people are indoctrinated in old books from birth, unlike adherents of science, who must learn how to do it properly for years, decades, and also surrender some level of ego to allow one's self to be questioned.

The other key difference is this: the Bible is, as creaionists say, the "revealed truth" of life and god. Science is a discivered truth in contrast. The similarity is that both can be followed correctly or inncorrectly according to the consensus developed by the wider practicing majority. The difference lies in the fact that when someone misuses the Bible, it's basically impossible to tell them they're necessarily wrong, because the Bible is one singular book that's been translated and retranslated more times than is known by unknown writers, and is not clear unless it's talking about punishing people for many trivial (and very few good) reasons. What happens when a scientist misuses research? Well, we can check the backlog to see what is really true and what really has been discovered, and punish the misuser with the truth of documented results and research.

How's my assessment?

Re: #17.

My thoughtless, immoral friends and I decided four things today:

1)Life is undirected.
2)The purpose of life over all is to strive to survive and reproduce. The purpose of human life in its biological and cultural context (now marked by our self-awareness and capacity to greatly modify nature) is what we make of it. We can choose to spend our time and effort on useless (if not destructive) fantasies about an afterlife for a selected few (talk about the moral equivalent of racism!). We can ignore the fascinating processes at play in the natural world around us, focusing instead on some far-fetched interpretations of a limited, cobbled-together metaphorical and political text edited by a parade of charlatans over the last 1700 hundred years. Or we can try to understand how the living world works and how it got to be the way it is by observing it in great detail and comparing our notes in the context of a vibrant community of fellow observers (one of the early ones having been Charles Darwin).
3)The over-riding process that led to the life around us was (and is) anything but random - three billion years of building on life's previous successes, can hardly be called "random".
4)The main reason to be pessimistic is that human societies are being choked by zealots and purveyors of snake oil trying to prevent people from learning to pay attention to the natural world and learning to live within its natural bounds.

'Big Ignorance- perfect' :)

As I have stated before, 'you'll know they are christians by their hate.'

To the computer programmer- evolution is only partially an 'optimization process.' You might want to read: Novak and Sigmond. 2004. Evolutionary dynamics of biological games. Science 303(5659): 793- 799.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/303/5659/793?ck=nck

I understand your anger, but we must hold ourselves to a higher standard, especially as we can get by on facts alone to win our case.

Of course, of course, but I'd like them to own up to the bigoted, misogynist, and frankly evil baggage that their own beliefs carry.

If these people had their way, the Bible would be rewritten to claim the Fall occurred in 1859. No darwinist invented the Pear of Anguish. No, the certainty of an eternal reward by a benevolent Creator for inflicting suffering on His other creations provided the inspiration for this example of spiritual fulfillment.

Dishonest asses. Fine then. Can I at least wish that their favourite foods cause them excruciating acid reflux?

PZ Myers Terrified of New Film

"they could prove that Darwin was a baby-raping cannibal" says Myers

Oh quote-mining, is there anything you can't do?

Soo... essentially what it boils down to is optimism vs. pessimism. It makes sense. Science has taught us that fossil fuels are coming to an end, that global warming will bring mass destruction, that our world is filled with all sorts of microscopic creepy-crawlies. It's depressing, it's scary. It makes sense that a large group of people (dare I say, a majority?) would shut their eyes, put their fingers in their ears, and aggressively maintain that it's all wrong - that the only end of the world will be a salvation, that we are special and loved, that we are better than the creepy-crawlies that surround us, etc.

Their emphasis on "Darwinism" being wrong BECAUSE its pessimistic tells me that these people just can't handle the reality of the world and are trying their very best to shut everything out and believe in a sky daddy who will protect them. They are essentially infantilising themselves because "ignorance is bliss."

When you get the "404 error" message, go to the top of the page and click on "The Blog" in the menu bar. This should then load the page correctly.

Since this post makes mention of Abraham Lincoln who I
admire and have a small libray of biographies of one
our best Presidents, I am perplexed by the absence of
any reference to Charles Darwin in any of these books,
including the best written to date, not even a mention
that Abe shared a birthdate with the also great man. Their
adult years were contemporaneous and you would think that
news would filter over from England about the work of the
then not too well-known great man. Did Lincoln know of
Darwin, or perhaps he did but never made any mention of it.
I can picture an aide or someone in the sciences saying to
Abe: "Mr President, did you know that you were born on the same day as Mr Charles Darwin of England, who is formulating a theory of Evolution that is causing the god
fanatics much concern and anguish and who will one day be
the target of the religiously deranged?" Snicker, I would
like to surmise, be audible on Abes' breath: "Go get them
Chuck, and make the tards squirm"! Anyway, I cannot find a
single word on both great men sharing a birthdate in any
of these books. Perhaps I may have missed a small mention
by a not too careful reading of the text. Can anyone give
me an indication or reference to this dilemna?

can you please get rid of comic sans for the blockquoting, its the worst font ever. although it does properly convey the childishness of who you're quoting.

Ron: "...although it does properly convey the childishness of who you're quoting."

Well, that kind of is the point.

Those theistards need to go back to science AND history class.

Or better yet, out of the gene pool.

lurid.. gloomy... depressing... pessimism... what a bizarre set of adjectives they employ to characterize one of the greatest advances in modern science. It's not like their beloved Bible is all sweetness and light.

May I suggest a set of adjective to characterize the weenies who made this inane movie: moronic, misguided, childish, and irresponsible?

A new disease should be added to the DSM-IV: Darwinphobia.

They've got it.

@95. At the time of the Civil War, evolution was 'parlor discussion' in this country. A quip by a Confederate soldier (I have forgotten which battle- and am remembering a High School presentation of 30+ ybp): "We may be descended from apes but General Lee could only have been made by Gad." This is pretty close. I do not know if Abraham Lincoln knew that he shared a birthday with Charles Darwin.

Reading them complain about how pessimistic biology is, I was inexplicably reminded me of my high school classmates. When we were watching The Lion King in Spanish class, they demanded that the teacher fast forward through the wildebeest stampede. Really demanded it; I thought they were going to cry if they didn't get their way. That Disney movie was too, too pessimistic for them to handle.

High school students.

What brought that up? Well, I remember that they were vocal creationists as well. Poor folks can't have their beautiful minds sullied I guess. :/

Ignore that unnecessary "me", and anything else I mistyped. Preview has failed me.

Another thing they get wrong: Lincoln, freethinker, was not especially fond of throwing around platitudes in homage to an assumed creator. However as an atheist, agnostic, or deist (it's unclear to me), he does have something in common with many of America's founding fathers. So they got that right! I wonder why they weren't more explicit in pointing out the heritage of secular ideals that Lincoln shared with Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Madison, etc.

"The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma." - Abraham Lincoln

PZ! I'm ashamed of you!

"The Bill of Rights so clearly stated - that all men were endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

You neglected to point out that they aren't even quoting the correct document. They are quoting the Declaration of Independence. What nincompoops!

mothra (#100) said,

A quip by a Confederate soldier (I have forgotten which battle- and am remembering a High School presentation of 30+ ybp): "We may be descended from apes but General Lee could only have been made by Gad."

It's in the movie Gettysburg (1993), that's for sure:

Sirs, perhaps there are those among you who believe you are descended from a ape. I suppose there may even be those among you who believe that I am descended from a ape. But I challenge the man to step forward who believes that General Robert E. Lee is descended from an ape.

I know...I didn't point out every stupidity in their blog entry. I limited myself to going paragraph by paragraph, when I could have practically gone word by word. I'm trusting you all to see the degree of inanity there without my syllable by syllable analysis.

"A Darwinian State would be a Fascist state."

What about a Quantum State? A Thermodynamic State? Can you imagine the horrors of a system of government based on the atomic theory? Organizational chaos, totalitarian mandates. Plus all the bombs.

Or, worst of all -- gravity. We need to fight, constantly, against a State of Gravity. I do my part by reading polemics like this one from the producers of Expelled. It is hard to maintain a State of Gravity afterwards.

Wow.

Excellent critique, Professor Myers.

Arrogant stupidity strikes again. This stuff makes my eyes hurt. The "pessimism" argument is perhaps the most mind-numblingly stupid thing I've read in weeks. I wonder if they reject the Second Law of Thermodynamics on the grounds that it's the basis of what might be the most pessimistic scientific hypothesis of all time. Surely it will give way to something else that "actually works." Gawd!

That wrapping themselves in the flag: more annoying is the way they wrap it around their faces. Can't see a damn thing!

The Bill of Rights so clearly stated - that all men were endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Clearly, this was written for a target audience (unfortunately a significant portion of the US) that doesn't know that The Constitution establishes and defines the US government, but the Declaration of Independence is inflamatory rhetoric written with the sole purpose of telling off George III. I suppose it is possible that the authors of the above quote don't know this either. But this nonsense has been going on too long for it to be mere stupidity, and I am inclined to attribute it to malice.

tsig the crazy troll:

Hitler said that the theory of eviloution allowed him to be an intellectually fulfilled genocidal maniac.

Then Hitler must be your hero.

tsig has a proposal to murder all religions and religious people with weird old books. This includes Moslem, Xian, Jewish, Budhist, and Hindus. Roughly somewhere between 5 billion people and everyone human on the planet.

I doubt it will get very far. It may take him to a secure lockup with padded walls though.

One of the things I most admire about Lincoln was his ability to grow and learn over time. Yes, he was born in a time when racism was nearly universal in this country and he absorbed much of that poisonous attitude. As the Lincoln quotation PZ includes in his post shows, he carried it into adulthood. However, his attitude towards African-Americans did change over time. Frederick Douglass' comments on President Lincoln's warm yet respectful treatment of him, Lincoln's genuine perplexity and distress over how best to rectify the nation's treatment of its black residents, and Lincoln's candor in discussing those issues with Douglass all bespeak a man who had indeed transcended the inherited bigotry of his times.

And just what do physicists have to hide by leaving the first two words off of Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica? Some of them go so far as to just call it Principia. I think this is part of a concerted effort to diminish the importance of Bertrand Russell's work with one that happens to share a similar title. Is nothing sacred to those Newtonists?

You know what else is a pessimistic scientific theory? Gravity. Gravity forces us to the ground against our will (which God gave us). It's our right to fly if we want to. But Big Science just won't let that happen.

Since some people have suggested a rebuttal movie, I'll throw my two cents in for the title concept: "Flunked: Intelligent Design didn't do any of the homework."

@#114 but wait... didn't their god give us gravity too? What does he want from us?!?! free will or not!?! my head hurts...

Sorry if this's been said, no time to read through all the comments right now. They have a problem with a theory being 150 years old and gloomy? Theirs is millenia old and about the most depressing thing you could ever think up.

Dembski showed up in the thread (comment #200) as Galapagos Finch and linked to his photo of himself photoshopped in with truly great scientific minds. I guess that is as close as he will ever come to being great. Cutting out a picture of himself and taping on a poster of some real scientists. So sad.

Abraham Lincoln ended slavery in America forever

Let's not forget, Lincoln didn't end slavery in America. Slavery was ended by the 13th Amendment, which was ratified in December 1865. Lincoln himself was assassinated in April. As for the Emancipation Proclamation, it only declared that slaves in non-Union-occupied Confederate areas were now free.

re pessimism:

maybe a little off-topic, but whenever I hear creationists talk about how sad it would be to be an atheist and to believe you were not created for a purpose, I think of a scene in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. At one point the story encounters a machine that reveals the immensity and grandeur of the universe to the "victim" with a little arrow pointing at nothing with the legend "you are here". Everyone who enters the machine is then driven to suicidal despair by the knowledge of just how insignificant they are in the grand scheme of things. Then Zaphod steps into the machine and emerges joyfully declaring "Wow, I must be the most important person in the universe; out of the whole universe I am the only one with an arrow pointing out exactly where I am! "

The point being of course that I think it is much more exciting to exist in a universe where I determine my own purpose. I can't for a second find any joy in the concept that my only purpose is to "give glory to God". That is far more depressing than a universe devoid of deity.

This site removes posts and edits posts that are being commented on ALL THE TIME. I actually commented to challenge them on the very topic of their post editing and they did write me an email back. I have no clue what to say to them anymore. It's all so scary and dishonest.

You know what else is a pessimistic scientific theory? Gravity. Gravity forces us to the ground against our will (which God gave us).

My wife is not very happy with gravity right now, after falling down an breaking her arm this weekend...

Long time lurker here. I'm just wondering if Mr. Stein was the writer of the "I am not a crook" speech. Just wondering. It just seems so... consistent.

Be of good cheer!

Gravity is a pessimistic theory (I dunno about you, but it really brings me down) and one day will be supplanted by something that actually works.

And LOL @ Sastra for her difficulty in maintaining a state of gravity. :-D

Budbear, Ben Stein was a Nixon speechwriter, but I don't know if that one was his.

Here's something Lincoln did say

And here's some more!

If they think Evolution is pessimistic, obviously they haven't thought things through! Let's look at ID: if an intelligence was powerful enough to create us, then surely it is powerful enough to destroy us! What if it/he/she/they decide(s) to send us a little virus a la Ebola (or a flood, why the hell not?) to get rid of us? What could we do? We're doomed, that's what we are!

Now I feel depressed...

I think a fitting punishment for this type of anti-scientific cretin would be to get a nice - albeit large - case of MRSA...and being sure to treat it with penicillin.

I suggest a contest between religion and science....Oops, I forgot Galileo and all the other guys.

On the Origin... just imagine if you had to repeat this name in full every time you said it:

Johann Gambolputty de von Ausfern- schplenden- schlitter- crasscrenbon- fried- digger- dingle- dangle- dongle- dungle- burstein- von- knacker- thrasher- apple- banger- horowitz- ticolensic- grander- knotty- spelltinkle- grandlich- grumblemeyer- spelterwasser- kurstlich- himbleeisen- bahnwagen- gutenabend- bitte- ein- nürnburger- bratwustle- gerspurten- mitz- weimache- luber- hundsfut- gumberaber- shönedanker- kalbsfleisch- mittler- aucher von Hautkopft of Ulm.

Kevin, I'm pretty sure you meant "schönendanker" in there, to say nothing of the fact that many musicolologists consider the plethora of hyphens to be spurious, claiming that Johann preferred to sign his last name without them. The claim, of course, is difficult to determine unambiguously, because there are few surviving copies of his signature and it is believed that he generally avoided giving autographs.

@3: copying blindly from Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme, third paragraph ---

"Memeticists argue that the memes most beneficial to their hosts will not necessarily survive; rather, those memes that replicate the most effectively spread best, which allows for the possibility that successful memes may prove detrimental to their hosts."

So what we have here is a wrong idea that is very effective at spreading itself.

Maybe Ben Stein's next project could be to look at the exercise of academic or personal freedom at Bible Colleges or so-called Christian universities.

It doesn't take much for either faculty, staff, or students to get Expelled! at these institutions. We're not talking seven deadly sins, heresy, or blasphemy--no we're talking about something usually a lot more trivial. Some examples that I have personal knowledge of: (1) an editor of the student newspaper being asked to leave because he asked a legitimate question about student behavior in an editorial--and when we refused to retract it, he was Expelled! (2) a faculty member (a really excellent teacher) was Expelled! because he refused to rein in his "uppity" wife who believed in something called equal rights for women, (3) a wonderful , caring young woman was Rejected! [Expelled! before even starting] because she admitted on her application that she had been able to survive an abusive marriage and was now divorced--which to the college meant she was a potential temptress (apparently she had tasted on the forbidden fruit, so she would be insatiable and lead many young men astray).

On the other hand, if you were the child of an administrator at the college, and you were a complete hell-raiser or jerk--breaking every rule that bound others--you were NOT Expelled! You were Tolerated! But if you didn't have filial ties to an administrator, and broke even the most minor rules, then you were maybe Warned!, but much more likely Expelled!

There are plenty of other examples that can be found on the web. That stench coming from Expelled!--it's the smell of hypocrisy.

As an interesting and telling aside, see what the subtitle of this website is:

http://www.kkk.com/

Hint: it doesn't mention Darwin

What a relief. In checking the Expelled web site, I found that the comments following Stein's rant were so intelligently critical, on the whole. With the exception of a handful of totally ignorant comments by anti-Darwinists, the majority of comments pointed out the inconsistencies of Stein's approach. All is not lost. 8-)

I haven't had any 404 errors for the blog link, perhaps because I have the Firefox extension RefControl installed, with the referrer setting 'Default for sites not listed' set to 'Forge' (for 3rd Party requests only).

@134

I now feel filthy. Honestly, that was one of the more disturbing taglines I've come across.

A Nixon speechwriter, a gang of lawyers, and a movie critic (Medved). These are the earnest, truth-seeking voices of optimism that "intelligent design" gives us?

Socialism is a "decadent (and presumably pessimistic) theory" that eventually gave way to theories that worked?

Have they looked at ... oh, say, EUROPE???

Socialism:A theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2.procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3.(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

These are the same folks who argue that universal healthcare is "socialized medicine" and then point to Europe, while exaggerating flaws within their systems, and insist that our "if you can play, you can stay" medical system works better. How can you possibly condemn something as socialist, point to functioning examples, and then claim that socialism has failed?

I just read Alan Brandt's The Cigarette Century (sure to rile you up and spike your blood pressure, especially if cigarettes have killed someone close to you, like they did my dad a few years ago). I was struck by the similarity of some (by no means all) of the tactics used by the tobacco industry and the creationism/ID movement.
Two in particular jumped out at me:
1) The tobacco companies dismissed mountains of compelling evidence because scientists and researchers couldn't completely answer every single question raised in the research or explain every single link in the causal chain. They demanded a level of proof much higher than required for virtually any other field of inquiry.
2) They generated a "controversy" where none really existed by calling on people with some scientific credentials (occasionally very impressive ones) who expressed their skepticism or even outright disbelief in the idea that cigarettes caused lung cancer and other diseases. Left conveniently unmentioned were the facts that few of the skeptics, however impressive their credentials in their own fields of study, had expertise in relevant disciplines and that virtually none of them had conducted any research into the matter. The actual researchers were virtually unanimous in their conclusions as early as the mid 50s. Essentially the only researchers denying the link between cigarettes and disease were those in the employ of the tobacco industry.
I think the parallels with the creationism/ID movement are pretty obvious.

Superb, PZ, superb. I don't know how you do it. Do you get ANY sleep?

Author of The God Delusion Richard Dawkins has stated that Darwin's evolution theory has provided atheists with "intellectual fulfillment."

Big deal so does every other discovery in the universe. The planets aren't pushed around by magic puppies anymore. Insects don't "poof" to life from out of the mud anymore. Big yahoo.

"Darwin's evolution theory, blah blah blah." Boy those guys don't like Darwin very much, do they? "Darwin this, Darwin that, blah blah Darwin, blah."

As a religious person who thinks "Intelligent Design" is useless junk, I feel like part of the their agenda is to reign in other religious people. I get that vibe from reading their stuff; sure they're arguing for ID to be taught in schools, but implicit in that argumet is that religious people all accept intelligent design. They do not, and I'd love to make a documentary about all of the various people I know who are scientists, who are religious, and who think pseudoscience like this is nonsense. There's a great essay on the supposed dichotomy between science and religion in an older Bible commentary I have on my bookshelf at home (published by Cambridge, I believe). The main purpose of the essay is dispel the myth that these two things must be in conflict, or that you have to believe in crank theories like ID if you're religious. I think there's a lot of jockeying going on right now in many religions where the neanderthals are trying to woo those who are new to their faith, or who may not currently have the experience or knowledge to understand the debate. Those of us who are religious and support modern science ought to be aware of those influences and stand ready to counter them when possible.

There's a great essay on the supposed dichotomy between science and religion in an older Bible commentary I have on my bookshelf at home (published by Cambridge, I believe). The main purpose of the essay is dispel the myth that these two things must be in conflict, or that you have to believe in crank theories like ID if you're religious.

Of coarse they don't have to be in conflict. Just stick to what the science says literally. And then just use some of your fancier allegoricals and metaphoricals (at your whim's desire and with no rhyme nor reason other than to kiss science's butt) with the religion stuff, so that the religion stuff says the same thing as the literal science stuff says. There you go, no conflict at all.

On a possible unexpected (and entirely unwarranted - I am, after all, an Oxford student) note, I'm continually pleased by your emphatic use of the word "wanker" to describe your opponents. It's a great word. More Americans should use it, definitely.

Keep up the good work!

As I put up on my blog - the Producers of that movie are not telling the truth. They've likely willfully misconstrued as much about evolution as they think they can get away with. They went to far.

JBS

I am really interested to see what the response is to this movie when it comes out. I wonder if anyone will even go see it. What an idiot Ben Stein is, he just looks completely retarded on that website of theirs. I'm sure this has been commented on already, but the blog entry shows up if you go to their site on your own, it just doesn't work when you link through this site. haha, someone's a little intimidated by the 'Big Scientists' I think!

As a religious person who thinks "Intelligent Design" is useless junk, I feel like part of the their agenda is to reign in other religious people. I get that vibe from reading their stuff; sure they're arguing for ID to be taught in schools, but implicit in that argumet is that religious people all accept intelligent design.

I've been of the same persuasion for quite some time. Richard Dawkins may be the Disco Institute's favorite whipping boy, but I get the feeling that they feel much more threatened by people like Kenneth Miller; theistic evolutionists undermine by their very existence the notion that evolution is inherently antithetical to religion and/or morality, which is their primary talking point. As far as I can tell, they think that TEs are either misguided or are closet creationists, but both of those options are demonstrably false.

"EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed" is a new film that will open your eyes to the scientific evidence that challenges Darwin's lurid theory of life."

Man, the posters just make themselves.

...we don't judge the validity of a theory on whether it's conclusions are what we want to hear...
PZ, write out 1,000 times, "I will NOT misuse the apostrophe"!

Thanks for that, Citizen Z! I envision Expelled turning into a party-DVD [pirated] with grad students yelling and throwing toilet paper at the screen.

Thing is, the creationists are so whiny. They're so uncool. They just can't do it right. Michael Moore, while annoying, is at least funny. These people aren't. They're so serious and earnest and, well, so FUCKING GRATING that eventually they're going to turn everyone but themselves off.

I mean, everyone loves a winner. Nobody likes a loser story - "They're being mean to us because we read the Buy-Bull, wah, wah, academic freedom, homeschooling, sob!" Give me a break.

Forget the cavalcade of throaty lies on that absurdity of a site. Anyone who reads the phrase "Big Science" and does not immediately burst into laughter isn't thinking right; anyone who reads it and somberly thinks "Yeah!" is a fifth-degree fucktard.

Wow.

Then again, I didn't attend Bible University.

And therein lies the problem. To creationists, there are no morally neutral facts. Instead, this world was created by the will of God, humankind was created in the image of God, and anything that is unfortunate in this world is representative of the post-Fall world, and can be taken as visible proof of humankind's perverse, sin nature.

Naturally, we who are scientists (or apprentice scientists, like myself) have a problem with this kind of thinking, because we are not trained under the unifying concept of mediaeval Scholasticism. It really is a case of two wholly incompatible worldviews. It's not that one can't do science and religion, but one cannot do mediaeval thinking and modernism, including modern science, in any form.

#149: that was hilarious! Well done. Thanks for that :)

Holy shit, Citizen Z, that poster is awesome.

Great job.

Re: barron's post at #14:

Germ theory of disease? Depressing!
Happy Dancing Elf theory of disease? Filled with joy (and dancing elves)!
Einsteinian Gravitational Theory? Too impersonal!
Gravity caused by Earth loving us soooo much theory? Happy!

Priceless. May I suggest picturing Will Ferrell delivering these lines in the "Little Cletus" sequence from Zoolander?

And hey, I never got my Big Science membership card. What's the deal?

Author of The God Delusion Richard Dawkins has stated that Darwin's evolution theory has provided atheists with "intellectual fulfillment."

Heck, I'm a Christian and Darwin's evolution theory has provided me with intellectual fulfilment (well, part of such intellectual fulfilment as I can lay claim to). The insights of evolutionary theory fill me with a sense of awe, wonder, delight and joy. The thought that the elaborate structure of a tree I walk past is the product of simply laws of physics and chemistry coupled with the subtle process of evolution is a constant source of wonder to me.

I react very negatively to creationists of any stripe (and by 'react negatively I mean I want to give them a solid kick - I don't do it, but I want to) because with their narrow, blinkered, incurious view of the world, they'd deprive people of the joy I take from such imperfect understanding as I have of how evolution has shaped our natural world and would have deprived me of it if they could have.

Pretty clearly the nitwits who promote crap like 'Expelled: the Movie So Bad They Have to Bribe People to Watch It' are entirely incapable of intellectual fulfilment of any type or degree.

#147 - considering that they have a push going on to get churches and schools to force students to go to the movie says w huge amount about what they think their chances are. Apparently the movie is so spectacular that they can't let the audience evolve, but it has to be intelligently designed.

Nicely put, Mike from Ottawa.

Citizen Z, I laughed until my sides hurt at your "revised" movie poster. Awesome.

I'm getting reeeal tired of IDiots resorting to ad hominem attacks on Darwin in lieu of presenting the elusive "scientific evidence" they claim to have (where? Hidden in a pickle jar at Area 51?) for intelligent design. They obviously don't understand that pathetic whiny little rants like this one demonstrate exactly how vacuous that claim really is.

Try pointing at Ben's face on the expelled banner. Arrogant to scared in under a second, that's how rock solid ID is.

Mike from Ottowa said:

I react very negatively to creationists of any stripe (and by 'react negatively I mean I want to give them a solid kick - I don't do it, but I want to)

Ah, more evidence that the evil Darwinist conspiracy preverts the morality of decent religious youth. ;-)

Oh, and Citizen Z, Awesome poster - do you have any more?

As a suggestion for a title of a counter film to 'Expelled', how about 'Groundhog Dei: No repeated inanity allowed'?

When you want to destroy something, you can take any sentence or phrasing out of context and turn it to your advantage.

That's what these assholes did. The part of how they messed up the "darwinian state" thing made me choke

After reading all the comments here, it appears that the main purpose of this blog is to allow members of the PZ Myers' amen chorus to compete for "The Most Insufferable Ass in the Blogosphere" award. Granted, PZ is a hard act to follow in that regard, but the authors of the following "arguments" merit at least honorable mention....

- "Bastards. Complete fucking fact-twisting, lying, douchebag fucktard bastards."

- "How can people be so utterly ignorant??"

- "Yep, they've either been hacked or have realised too late their own babyish stupidity."

- "(S)ince they really are ignorant slobs, they know as little about language and history as they do about science."

- "It really is depressing quite how ignorant and deluded some people can be."

- "What a worthless bunch of fuckwits."

- "I hate these slimy, little fuckers."

- "They aren't just stupid, they're also sinister."

- "Ben Stein and his cronies should re-read the fucking Bill of Rights. Is it the stupidity that makes them creationists, or creationism that makes them stupid?"

- "Self-pitying, lying, bigoted, anti-science dickheads."

- "Those theistards need to go back to science AND history class."

I'm particularly impressed by those who use variations of the "f" word, a manner of speaking that exhibits the height of wit and erudition. Keep up the good work, boys and girls. I'm sure that the Pharyngula group grope must give you some emotional satisfaction, but the likelihood that you'll persuade skeptics that Darwinism is (in the words of Darwinian philosopher Michael Ruse) a "fact, fact, FACT!!!" is nil. Since you show no respect for the opinions of skeptics, you command no respect from them. All the preaching to the choir and adolscent name-calling that goes on here ensures that Pharyngula will win no converts to the Church of Darwin. As I said, keep up the good work. With friends like you, Darwinism needs no enemies.

WARNING! If your critical argument is so FLAWED that its persuasiveness relies on the use of font and style changes like ITALICS and BOLD to connect emotionally with what sympathetic readers already believe, then, it is highly likely that your argument is CRAP.

There's no reason to respect the opinions of skeptics when they're flat-out wrong, Jim.

This site removes posts and edits posts that are being commented on ALL THE TIME. I actually commented to challenge them on the very topic of their post editing and they did write me an email back. I have no clue what to say to them anymore. It's all so scary and dishonest.

Yes, they're a bunch of hypocritical censorious weasels, who, naturally, don't allow people to comment about how they censor out critical posts. That's why I don't post there any more, for once it is clear that they can and will prevent the appearing of any argument that they don't like, one realizes that one is at a great disadvantage in trying to make sense to them.

So yes, they're whining about "being expelled," while just about anything can be written on this and many other "Darwinist" forums, and they protect their especial lies.

In the spirit of freedom, I'll note that Jim is a STUPID FUCKTARD with nothing worth saying. The nanny strikes, telling people what droning pedants have always claimed, that there is no percentage in obscenity and profanity. FUCK THAT and all the BULLSHIT that such righteous bigots spew in their never-ending attempts to legislate that LIARS should never be called on their mendacity (I almost never capitalize like I did in this paragraph, but thought I would for granny Jimmy there).

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Jim,

I have some sympathy for what you are saying. I too dislike some of the name-calling, but I filter through. And I still prefer Pharyngula to most other blogs, as there are many good commenters here, and I learn a lot.

If you can name me better blogs, please do so, and I'll look at them.

As far as persuading you that Darwinism is a fact, I don't know, but a good start would be if you could explain what you consider Darwinism to be.

Then, maybe we can have a discussion.

I didn't know I was supposed to be winning converts for a church or whatever. I'm way too lazy for that.

"Since you show no respect for the opinions of skeptics, you command no respect from them. All the preaching to the choir and adolscent name-calling that goes on here ensures that Pharyngula will win no converts to the Church of Darwin. As I said, keep up the good work. With friends like you, Darwinism needs no enemies."

Jim,

You seem to be harbouring the illusion that respect does not need to be earned.

If you really think that lying and ignorance are things deserving of respect then all I can say to you is go fuck yourself.

And just so you are in no doubt, I do not have any respect for you and the insult is quite intentional.

Hey y'all,

The "argument" I was referring to was the original post PZ referenced. It was directed at the writers of that nonsense crap. The absurdity of their argument is well documented above. I hoped to draw attention to the weak and lazy literary style they used. Sorry for the confusion.

"Hey y'all,

Sorry then Jim, I guess I have exceeded my daily exposure limits to stupid fundy crap.

negentropyeater: "If you can name me better blogs, please do so, and I'll look at them."

Although it's a talk forum, not a blog, you might try OriginsTalk at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/
Because the forum is moderated, it has a much more adult tone than Pharyngula.

negentropyeater: "As far as persuading you that Darwinism is a fact, I don't know, but a good start would be if you could explain what you consider Darwinism to be. Then, maybe we can have a discussion."

If you're sincere in this, go to the OriginsTalk forum and search for message #13,617. In that message (which marks my entry into the forum), I explain what I mean by "Darwinism."
If you'd like to talk, join the forum. I'm done with Pharyngula.

Jim #172: Are you Jim 165 or Jim 166? And would one of you please change your handle to Jimmy Jimjim to avoid confusion?

"Because the forum is moderated, it has a much more adult tone than Pharyngula."

I thought you were complaining about the adult nature of Pharyngula earlier. The word "fuck" is kind of adult in nature you know.

If the word "fuck" is ok on the BBC after 9pm then who I am I to disagree ?

To quote the opening of "Four Weddings and a Funeral".

"Fuck, Fuck, Fuck, Fuckity Fuck Fuck. Fuck. Fucking Fuck".

If you'd like to talk, join the forum. I'm done with Pharyngula.

*sniff, sniff*

"I'm done with Pharyngula."

Yeah, us Darwinists are just so MEAN to liars like the Expelled people. Cry me a river.

Since you show no respect for the opinions of skeptics, you command no respect from them. All the preaching to the choir and adolscent name-calling that goes on here ensures that Pharyngula will win no converts to the Church of Darwin.

Stupidity is actually not an opinion, dumbfuck, and it ought not to be respected. Thus I don't respect your stupidity and dishonesty.

As for name-calling, your hypocrisy is intense as you write of the "Church of Darwin". Actually, if you assholes could even begin to deal respectfully and honesty with the evidence, we wouldn't resort to the language you do understand. You can't and don't understand science, but you do understand words like "dumbfuck," so rather than deal with your tendentious dishonesty, I'd rather call you the dumbfuck that you are.

Do let the door slam on your ass as you leave, Jim-bo. We made it close especially hard (with uncomfortable angles) for idiots like you as you whinge about how we disrespect your tedious and stupid lies.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Jim. Like most religious fools you seem to think the wording or a message is more important than the content. Worse, you seem to think calling people liars, when they lie, or other such things constitutes "unreasonable" statements. I agree that too many of the people that jumped over there to comment opted to simply call you fools, liars, etc., rather than refuting any points. I even slipped a it into that myself. By FSM damn it, when someone posts a stupid piece of gibberish on their site, which contains not one sentence that isn't inaccurate, intentionally altered to make the original person look bad, actually contradicts their own position (which you only need the damn title for in this case, given its comparing someone that thought black people could be civilized to someone that *you* thought was better, but thought black people where so inferior they shouldn't vote, involve themselves in legal issues or marry anyone not the same color), and all of it is the same useless BS we have heard from the same sources for years, debunked a million times, provided direct refutations to from historical documents and the writings of people that either authored the comments or witnessed the events, well.. what kind of reaction would you expect from people seeing the same useless BS again? At some point rational attempts to correct the blatant ignorance, intentional dishonesty and just plain clueless thinking of such people is exhausted and all you are left with is, "@$@#! Not #$#$$%# again!"

Congratulations, having failed to present one valid fact, one scrap of evidence for your position, one historically accurate statement, one single correctly attributed and complete quote, and having spent absurd amounts of time trying to convince people you are right about *anything*, you can claim the moral high ground on one, and only one, position. You don't call us fucking stupid, asshole, morons, but some of us have reached the point where logic, reason and truth are so obviously incapable of penetrating the morass of bullshit you people babble all the time that we, who usually go to careful lengths to make clear and precise statements are left with nothing but, "How the hell can these people be so fucking stupid?

If truth, history, fact, valid science or *anything else* non-imaginary was determined by how nice the people stating it was, instead of on something far sillier, like provability, you would be the hands down winners. Thankfully, its not, and even you own fracking God supposedly looks down on liars, con artists, people that bare false witness to the facts, and all the other idiocy you people use 24/7 to push your useless guesses about biology (I won't deign to dirty the word theory by using it instead), your desire for what history *should have* been, or your need to be right, as though you had any of it even vaguely right, instead of having to bend everything you touch into a pretzel to make the ignorant and gullible *think* you are telling them something important.

Driving your opponent to the point where they are at a complete loss for words in the face of your ignorance and incompetence, and they are only left with silence or cussing, is not a sign you won, its just a sign that you are too far gone for rational arguments and you should be standing on a street corner with a dirty coat and a sign saying, "Repent! An evil conspiracy is preventing my truth from being seen!" At least then you *might* get enough sympathy from us to receive spare change and a look of pity.

Jim points to OriginsTalk as having his definition of "Darwinism". Well, the direct link is here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/13617

Where he says:

Also, when I refer to "Darwinism," I'm referring to modern evolutionary theory, also called neo-Darwinism or the Modern Synthesis.

In other words, by "Darwinism" he means the entire modern science of evidence-supported evolutionary biology.

I am disinclined to join OriginsTalk to dispute the misconceptions expressed, though. The main page says:

The OriginsTalk listserv was established as a service of the Northwest Creation Network in June 2001.
[...]
Rules for OriginsTalk: Posting privileges will be suspended for 30 days following violation. Users will be permanently banned upon their 3rd removal or for excessively abusive behavior.

Derogatory comments or insults of list members or persons abroad are forbidden.

Posts must remain on-topic (Creation Science, Evolution & Intelligent Design)

Posts must contain content (I Agree, I'm Sorry, or Thankyou-type post are not permitted)

Posts Limit of 2 per day.

Attachments are not permitted.

Profanity or expletives are forbidden.

Public Responses or comments regarding moderation are forbidden.

As much as I actually agree that some of the violent and vituperative language occasionally seen here is excessive and sometimes counter-productive, I think I prefer a more open forum to one where comments are so carefully controlled. The intelligent comments on Pharyngula have been worth having to cope with the outbursts of anger.

Just so there's no confusion upon my departure, messages 165 and 174 are mine; messages 166 and 172 were posted by another "Jim."

Also, in an apparent attempt to gild his lily in "The Most Insufferable Ass in the Blogosphere" competition, Glen D. wrote: "I'll note that Jim is a STUPID FUCKTARD with nothing worth saying. The nanny strikes, telling people what droning pedants have always claimed, that there is no percentage in obscenity and profanity. FUCK THAT and all the BULLSHIT that such righteous bigots spew in their never-ending attempts to legislate that LIARS should never be called on their mendacity (I almost never capitalize like I did in this paragraph, but thought I would for granny Jimmy there)."

Similarly, Matt P. wrote: "If you really think that lying and ignorance are things deserving of respect then all I can say to you is go fuck yourself."

One can only marvel at such virtuosity in infantile argumentation.

"or maybe they are sexually selected?" Awesome! I'll so owe you a beer if you can get that link onto the comments page at Expelled!

It's there, but it doesn't seem like much of an accomplishment since most comments are mocking the original post anyway :)

Wank wank wank.

One can only marvel at such virtuosity in infantile argumentation.

Shit-fuck, you dishonestly quote-mined some of my comments, which I have supported here and elsewhere. Rather than dealing with any sort of the considerable support and substance I have given for calling the Expelled people lazy slobs, and not only stupid but sinister, you merely bitched and whined about it, without even acknowledging the context.

You are a stupid fucktard. All of the evidence points to it. But of course you ripped the bit I wrote out of context yet again, apparently in a bid to show that there isn't the slightest bit of honesty in your slimy soul.

"Infantile argumentation," indeed. You're such a fuck-minded fool that you didn't even begin to make any kind of argumentation at all, rather you began with dishonest quote-mining while ignoring all substance, and you end in the same dishonest vein with which you began.

Here is about the worst insult you can receive, and you completely deserve it--you have the honesty and intelligence of an IDist.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

For Jim the moronic troll.

The reason why the rhetoric is heated here is simple. There aren't words in the English language to express our contempt for the intellectually and morally bankrupt liars of Expelled and the DI crew.

Most derogatory words have become devalued by overuse. Still people feel like they have to try.

If Stein and his cohort of lying religious bigots weren't completely dishonest and stupid, it wouldn't be necessary. And BTW, when you grow a brain and some ethics and move out from under your bridge on the information superhighway, people won't call you a moronic troll anymore. This could be as soon as a decade but will probably be after the sun goes nova.

So Jim, what's your point? That people who utilize profanity and get angry are necessarily wrong about the positions they hold? That people who are nice and polite are necessarily right about theirs? Sorry, but rationality doesn't work that way. This is so obvious that I'm not sure why it needs to be explained to you, but I guess you're too busy focusing on formalities like civility and etiquette that you forget to actually think about the substance of what you say before you blab about it.

Jim,

don't worry too much about the rude words, these people don't really mean what they write, they are just challenging you. It's a bit strange at first, but it works.
Or at least it works for me.
It forces you to think more and to try to make comments that will not warrant these insults. Because, believe me, if you express an opinion which has some merit, even if people might disagree, you won't get that many insults. Because many Pharyngulites are, contrary to what you might think, very well educated.

I checked some of your posts over at the forum you mentionned. We don't seem to be that far apart, or at least, from where I was about one year ago.

You seem to be a well educated person who is searching for answers. But are you willing to challenge your preconceptions ? You can do two things, first is leave Pharyngula and not bother anymore. Second is try to do better, and dig more profoundly into an understanding of what is meant with Evolution.
Ask questions, you'll get some answers, and you can think about them. Make statements with no evidence to back them up, and you'll get insults.

And don't forget one thing, saying that Evolution is a fact (what you call Darwinism) just means that life on earth really evolved according to that framework. It doesn't mean that there be no God, but it makes it a serious possibility. Sometimes, I'm still hoping that there might be a God, an as yet undiscovered evidence, but I admit that even if there are gaps in our understanding of the Universe, and all the details of the emergence and evolution of life on earth are not known, these gaps are no evidence for the existence of God.

ID pretends it has found a great scientific method in order to detect those evidences. Wouldn't it be great if it were true ? That'd be the most important discovery of humankind. Why wouldn't 99.9% of the scientific community proclame the genius of it's discoverers, Behe, Dembski et al? I mean, think about it, is it because those dogmatic Scientists don't want there to be a God, or simply, because the framework suggested by ID is worthless ?
What do you think, what makes you so certain that ID has scientific value ?

I think what the kooks mean by "pessimism" is their confusion of evolution and atheism -- the latter being pessimistic in not believing in a life after death. (Never mind the Sumerian afterlife: everyone's shadow, regardless of faith or works, goes to the permanently dark underworld to eat mud and live in depression for all eternity.)

One of my housemates, a christian, does not believe in evolution, and yet most of the time appears to be perfectly intelligent. Religion has a lot to answer for...

It's called ignorance.

2) The purpose of life over all is to strive to survive and reproduce.

Show me that there's a purpose. I bet you can't. I think "what is the purpose of life" is a wrong question, like "why did Napoleon cross the Mississippi".

who argue that universal healthcare is "socialized medicine"

Hey, they're right.

How can you possibly condemn something as socialist, point to functioning examples, and then claim that socialism has failed?

It's called ignorance.

------------------------

Jim, are you the one who once said the Intelligent Designer was ineffable?

Anyway, you said "Darwinian philosopher". That's a contradiction in terms. Biology is a science, not a philosophy.

these people don't really mean what they write, they are just challenging you.

No, they really do mean it -- for quite understandable reasons.

Because, believe me, if you express an opinion which has some merit, even if people might disagree, you won't get that many insults.

Where "merit" is a synonym of "evidence".

You seem to be a well educated person who is searching for answers.

That's nice of you. To me he seems more like a poorly educated person who believes he already has all answers, and doesn't even get the idea that he might not have all of them. -- But, Jim, you're welcome to prove me wrong.

Anyway, you said "Darwinian philosopher". That's a contradiction in terms. Biology is a science, not a philosophy.

I don't think it's a contradiction, exactly. But it does appear to be a confusion of methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism.

Jim never did offer any sort of meaningful response to the long list of scientific refutations of his confusion in the "Wells lies. Again." thread from Sept 2007. Shrug.

I find it very interesting that they keep talking about how out of date the 150 year old theory is, but their claims are based on something 2000 years old. And it's contained in a book, which has been proven wrong on many points through science.

David,
"That's nice of you."
It's just that I too, not so long ago, had similar problems. I wanted so badly that there be a God, because I was afraid to die, that I was hoping that Science might help to justify my need (faith).
It took me a while to understand that it doesn't work that way, that it only leads to intellectual dishonesty.
I'm still not an Atheist, probably will never be. But I now admit that all we can only know, is through the scientific method, and that means methodological naturalism.
The rest is just hope.

Here's a good example of Expelled! in practice.

Dembski to UD contributor: "That said, I don't like your tone, so unless you find another way in, you won't be posting at UD any longer."

Some afterthoughts....

For negentropyeater: For further discussion of what I mean by "Darwinism," go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/15423

For David M: No, I never said that Intelligent Design is "ineffable." You must be thinking of someone else.

For Kagehi: No, I don't think "the wording of a message is more important than the content," but I do think that it's possible to converse with cordiality and respect. To point out the obvious, that's a skill that many of the Pharyngula posters (including the head man, PZ) have never acquired. I'm actually doing them a service by pointing out how harmful their adolsecent argumentation is to their own position, but if they want to keep giving people reasons to ignore them, so be it. Thoughts expressed in offensive ways tend to be thoughts ignored (except, perhaps, by those of a like mind). Whatever merits Darwinism might have, the hostile defense mounted for it on Pharyngula does more to harm it than to help it. I'm sure Darwin would be appalled by the polemics of his modern-day followers.

For AL: I neither said nor suggested that "people who utilize profanity and get angry are necessarily wrong about the positions they hold" or that "people who are nice and polite are necessarily right about theirs." I was simply saying that people who routinely resort to profanity and name-calling come across as insufferable asses, in detriment to their own "arguments." These are the kind of people who presume that those who don't agree with them are, ipso facto, ignoramuses, liars, and idiots. If they want to inflict harm on their own position by expressing themselves with adolesecent immaturity, I say "keep up the good work."

To Owlmirror: If you think I provided "no meaningful response to the long list of scientific refutations of (my)confusion in the 'Wells lies. Again.' thread from Sept 2007." I invite you (and others who might be interested) to reread that thread. I think a fair-minded reading of the things I posted would show that I made a lot of meaningful responses. That you might disagree with what I said doesn't mean that my responses weren't meaningful.

Looks like Jim will never be able to support any of his idiotic prejudices, so enough of that moron.

Here's an interesting piece on Stein's idiocy, not so much interesting because it adds to the responses given, but because it's from the Britannica Blog:

How Low Can Ben Stein Go? (To the Maligning of Charles Darwin) Robert McHenry - February 15th, 2008

You laughed at his affectless droning high school economics teacher in Ferris Bueller's Day Off ; you may have enjoyed his repartee with Jimmy Kimmel or his command of trivial knowledge on "Win Ben Stein's Money"; you may even have run out and bought some eyedrops on his recommendation. But don't ask him about evolution, Charles Darwin, science, or any related topic, for on those Ben Stein is an ignoramus. Since he is demonstrably intelligent, it must be concluded that he is a willful ignoramus.

He evidently stars in a soon-to-be-released movie called "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," which makes some sort of case for "Intelligent [sic] Design" and decries the teaching of evolutionary science in public schools. The producers of the movie have built a website to help promote their work, and the compliant Mr. Stein has written a little essay to help us place "Darwinism" in historical context. Let's have a look.

He begins, as any high school essay must, with a broad theme:

It would be taken for granted by any serious historian that any ideology or worldview would partake of the culture in which it grew up and would also be largely influenced by the personality of the writer of the theory.

Seems harmless enough, though we're not sure what "partake" means, exactly, or how much is "largely."

By way of illustration he gives us - guess which theoretician plucked, just offhand, from the entire history of mankind? Sonofagun! Karl Marx. What were the odds?

"[M]ajor theories," the avuncular Ben tells us, "...come from the era in which they arose." Yes, yes, I see your hands; tautology. But give him a break. Here comes the minor premise.

Darwinism...is a perfect example of the age from which it came: the age of Imperialism.

And therefore.... Well, he doesn't say. This is called an enthymeme, or a rhetorical syllogism. The idea is that the conclusion gains force from seeming to occur spontaneously to the reader. This is the sort of thing that gives rhetoric a bad name.

But why isn't "Darwinism" offered as a perfect example of, say, the Victorian Age? Or of the Steam Age? Or the Age of the Clipper Ship? Is it possible that Stein is loading the argument just a tad?

A little bit later he tells us that "Imperialism had a short but hideous history - of repression and murder." He seems to think that the British, and specifically the Victorians, invented imperialism. This idea would surprise the Incas and the Arabs and the Spanish and the Portuguese, among others around the world. He seems also to believe that the results of European imperialism were uniformly terrible. Some were, some were not. There is surely something to be said for the spread of democracy and the rule of law and of technology such as the railroad and the telegraph. With difficulties but with clear lines of descent, such generally decent modern states as India, Indonesia, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States all arose out of imperialist action.

Stein has pulled a second fast one on us here, though. He has equivocated. He has said, in effect, "Marx wrote a theory; things done in its name were very bad. Darwin wrote a theory; [fill in the blanks]." He conflates two distinct senses of the word "theory," one of them appropriate when a chap sits in the Reading Room of the British Museum, gazing up at the cobwebs, and concocts a story to explain all of human behavior and history, the other appropriate when another chap spends years in painstaking observation of specific phenomena and finds a way not only to explain by a single principle all that he has observed but to predict phenomena not yet seen. This latter method you may recognize as what we call "science."

But Stein has found his horse now, and off he rides. "Darwin offered the most compelling argument yet for Imperialism." No demonstration or even quotation is given in support of that astonishing charge, but suffice it to say that The Origin of Species contains no such argument. Much about birds and such, but not a word on who should rule Africa.

And now we are at full gallop:

Alas, Darwinism has had a far bloodier life span than Imperialism. Darwinism, perhaps mixed with Imperialism, gave us Social Darwinism, a form of racism so vicious that it countenanced the Holocaust against the Jews and mass murder of many other groups in the name of speeding along the evolutionary process.

By now the term "Darwinism" has lost all connection to the theory of biological speciation as propounded by the quiet man in his study in Kent, and Stein has simply lost his mind.

What does it mean, for example, to speak of "Darwinism...mixed with Imperialism"? Is this a chemical compound of some sort? Was "Darwinism" relatively innocent until some proportion of "Imperialism" got mixed in with it? Then what to make of "perhaps"? And who did the mixing? There is a clue to this last question in the mention of "Social Darwinism," an inapt phrase that is most often associated with the sociology of Herbert Spencer. Inconveniently, however, Spencer had first laid out his basic views in Social Statics, published eight years before Darwin's great work.

It sorts out this way: Charles Darwin, after long study and thought, proposed a mechanism by which biological species differentiate. The mechanism was "natural selection," which supposes that some of the observed variations among members of a species render the possessor more able to survive and propagate. By that means the variant becomes dominant. This is one side.

On the other hand is a wildly diverse assortment of economists, sociologists, political writers, and plain cranks who share in some degree the belief that certain physical characteristics, mental capacities, behavioral habits and so on render certain human individuals or certain groups more able to succeed in the search for survival and security. They have various and equally diverse notions of what inferences follow from this. But someone notices that there is at least a linguistic similarity between these thoughts and Charles Darwin's theory and thus invents the label "Social Darwinism" to pin on the lot.

On the third hand, yet other people, possibly or possibly not influenced by reading works by some of the second crowd but quite clearly capable of evil without any such assistance, perpetrate great horrors.

And for these horrors Ben Stein wishes to blame the theory of evolution by natural selection. He produces a shambles of an essay in the course of which he manages to malign the name of Darwin by association with both Communism and Naziism, a remarkable day's work after which any civilized man would knock off early and call for cocktails. But not Ben. No, Ben toils on. By the time he's through, every kook and monster who ever used the word "evolution" has become the satanic spawn of Charles Darwin. This sort of thing is doubtless effective in a sermonette at the Discovery Institute, but as a contribution to the public discourse it is simply shameful.

And what is all this perverseness in aid of? In support of a set of beliefs that parades as a scientific alternative to "Darwinism" even though it is supported by no evidence, while evolution by natural selection is controverted by none. More subversively, it is a set of beliefs held by people whose aim is to prevail not in the scientific journals or the universities but at the ballot box and in the public schools. Like Ben Stein's arguments, they are not to be trusted.

blogs.britannica.com/blog/main/2008/02/how-low-can-ben-stein-go/

I like it when Britannica (blog) calls Stein an "ignoramus," albeit restricted to science and related topics (he could have added at least several more), since that's the only reasonable conclusion to be made re that blithering anti-freedom operative.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

the hostile defense mounted for it on Pharyngula does more to harm it than to help it.

No it doesn't. The theory is just fine and very useful in scientific circles. It is widely misunderstood by goobers who attack it in a far more aggressive manner than anything said on this blog.

I would hope you are consistent in the same type of commentary to those who attempt to destroy science in the USA and bring real substantial harm to the nation.

You sure are taking a long time to leave, Jimjim.

Precisely, just as Jimc says, the number, extent, anger and bad language, not to mention often obvious insanity, of the endless list of people that attack this site and Evolution, and then ban people, even when being civil, from theirs for disagreement makes our occasional use of colorful words to emphasize a point makes us look like saints by comparison. Mind you, if your sole criteria is whether or not we take some stupid Protestant mistranslation of the demand that people don't curse to be accurate, their is often more insanity than profanity from the wackos. After all, you can't get into heaven by being *clear* about your views, you have to use convoluted and absurd wording to express your craziness.

Oh, and in case Jim is still around, here is why your, and others, hyped up reaction to so called profanity is BS. In the original Hebrew, "profane", meant, "anything not done in the worship of God, including sleeping, eating, etc.", if it wasn't done in church and in praise of God, it was profane (i.e., of the earth, not heaven), so profanity, as everyone uses the word today, is just nonsense, of course its profanity, it doesn't praise god, but then neither does listening to the latest album, watching TV, or any other damn thing that you do outside a church. "Cursing" and "taking the lords name in vain", on the other hand, specifically referred to either demanding, and or trying to cajole and/or bribe God into hurting others or giving *you* things, because *you* thought God should given them to you, rather than being satisfied with what God wanted.

Now, I consider the later quite useless. If I believed it, then I would be horrified at the people that insist that one my death bed I would commit such a blasphemy by begging god for more life, and I would be even more horrified by how much time everyone around me spent begging god to smite people they don't like, give them things they think they need, force other people to vote for the officials they want elected, or the billions of other blasphemies committed on a daily basis, all because some ass Protestant, back when the church was founded, decided to ignore the original meaning, and instead convince everyone to burn people at the stake for calling people dung heaps, or otherwise talking about bodily functions and other "icky" things in reference to the character of other people, possibly even the insane priest that came up with the idea. I still wouldn't be screaming about how calling someone an ass "hurt" their argument, especially when the comments made where appropriately descriptive of their behavior.

If you think I provided "no meaningful response to the long list of scientific refutations of (my)confusion in the 'Wells lies. Again.' thread from Sept 2007." I invite you (and others who might be interested) to reread that thread. I think a fair-minded reading of the things I posted would show that I made a lot of meaningful responses. That you might disagree with what I said doesn't mean that my responses weren't meaningful.

Speaking of "inviting to read", in that thread, you were invited to read Kevin Padian's Dover testimony, as well as many other biological resources. Did you ever do so? Have you ever read any book on what you so continually denigrate, modern evolutionary biology?

And one last question... You asserted, in a different thread, that the ID movement was working "to develop the theoretical, logical, evidentiary, and mathematical tools needed to detect actual design in the biosphere"

How nice. Can you point to any specific tool that can in fact be used to detect design in the biosphere?

I have actually thought of one such a metric, but I don't think it would do the ID movement any good whatsoever...

Mind you, if your sole criteria is whether or not we take some stupid Protestant mistranslation

In their defense I don't think they have the translation wrong at all. Others bend the words to make it say what they will but the words are what is written.

on a daily basis, all because some ass Protestant

I can assure you this is not a ass Protestant position and many ass catholics have it as well.

Pessimistic? ATHIESTS are pessimistic? Who are the ones on the soap boxes shouting about the death of Western Civilization and the end of the world?

Actual conversation between a presumed pessimist (me) and a presumed optimist (a fundamentalist friend):

Fundamentalist friend: "People begin to die the instant they are born."
Me: "Then why do they grow?"
Fund Friend: "Pardon?"
Me: "You're saying that at the instant of birth, people hurdle toward death, right?"
Fund Friend: "Yes. When cells die they are never reborn."
Me: "That discounts a few observable facts, not the least of which is that an organism needs to actually live before it can die. We are not sprung from the womb fully formed with a set number of cells that instantly hurtle toward death--at conception, cells divide; after birth, people grow. The act of procreation is a mean of insuring that life will continue after we die."
Fund Friend: "Huh. I never thought of it that way."
Me: "That's because you're a solipsistic twit who swallows whole the inherent negativity of ignorant dogma."

OK, I actually added that last part, but everything that proceeded it was (a-not-exactly-verbatim-but-otherwise) accurate.

Well, the point JimC is that historically, even if some Catholics would have *wanted* the same meaning and interpretation, the Protestants where the ones that made it the rule of their faith. The Catholics at the time had no formal rule saying that bad language was part of that category of sins, and not just one of an absurd number of sins they babbled about. It was *specifically* the Protestants that stretched the already over used idea of such things being sins and married them to the idea that profane was something other than a synonym for "mundane". Prior to that, most of the religious groups frowned on it, said it was offensive to god, mostly, but didn't equate it with making curses or trying to make demand of their god.

That the original mistranslation was probably from Hebrew to Latin, much like the stupid mess that led to two different words, which we might call spirit and soul (i.e., that which animates and that which defines self), being identical in meaning, is only relevant in that it provided a convenient means to further distort the meaning among people that thought *they* had a better idea what it was supposed to mean that people who based their view of the matter on older forms. You get the same BS today, of course, from all the gibbering fools that insist the KJV is the perfection of the Bible, having not only never read anything earlier than the copy their church handed to them as a child, never mind having a clue what **any** of the original meanings, passages or wording was, for any of it.

Actually, evolution is the most optimistic theory to explain the origin and existence of many of the very weird, sinister and seemingly sadistic forms of life, ie. weird parasites, Sphex wasps paralyzing caterpillars so they can be eaten alive by wasp larvae, etc. If any intelligent creator deliberately designed and made these creatures, He/She would have to be one sadistic, creepy Jeffrey Dahmer of a Creator. Black Plague anyone?

I wonder how one can associate the words "optimistic" or "pessimistic" with a scientific theory.
When a theory is valid, and does explain the way things really happened, then it is neither optimistic nor pessimistic, it's just, the truth.

So, when talking of Evolution, let's not get into an optimism contest.

For AL: I neither said nor suggested that "people who utilize profanity and get angry are necessarily wrong about the positions they hold" or that "people who are nice and polite are necessarily right about theirs."

Yes you did suggest it, and you just did it again! Watch:

I was simply saying that people who routinely resort to profanity and name-calling come across as insufferable asses, in detriment to their own "arguments."

In detriment to their arguments? So if you say "2+2=5," and I say "no, 2+2=4, dumbass," you're implying that the dumbass ad hominem somehow defeats the FACT that 2+2=4. Sorry, but once again, rationality doesn't work that way.

These are the kind of people who presume that those who don't agree with them are, ipso facto, ignoramuses, liars, and idiots. If they want to inflict harm on their own position by expressing themselves with adolesecent immaturity, I say "keep up the good work."

No, it is not presumed ipso facto that those who disagree with evolution are ignoramuses, liars or idiots. It's established by observing that they in fact do behave in a manner befitting such labels. If they were ipso facto such, PZ's thread need not be more than one sentence long, but here we have detailed elaborations on why the arguments of the Expelled crowd are wrong. That you choose to gloss over all this so as to make the equivocation that those of us who defend evolution passionately with facts are just as militant and dogmatic as those who defend creationism with fabrication is indicative of your own willful ignorance more than anything else.

Vic: The "Big Science" thing seems to be yet another example of the fundies coopting the postmodernists/"critical theorists"/"cultural studies" crowd.

Brownian, OM (re: fucktard): Seems that you've stated an individualist version of the Feuerbach-Durkheim thesis that religions duplicate a delayed version of the social structure of their ambient society.

windy: If big hats leads to sexual selection, why does the pope wear one?

MS: The global warming "skeptics" and Holocaust deniers do the same sorts of stuff, too.

OK, so I just watched the preview of "Expelled." Two glaring things:

1) There was a clip of Richard Dawkins saying [paraphrasing] "As a scientist, I'm hostile to opposing positions." Then cut. It was particularly obvious by the tone of his voice that there was more to the quote than that, but the producers say fit to create their own context. Ironically, of course, the producers don't recognize the manner that Dawkins' quote, in this context, accurately describes their position as well.

2) In voiceover, Stein says something to the effect that he's distressed by the fact that in all other communities but scientific, freedom of speech is a respected freedom. Frankly, I neglected myself to finish the quote (yes, thereby creating my own context, I know, but I was just too pissed to continue), but it was clear by the preamble to that statement that his position is that by denying some doddering "scientists" tenure, scientific and academic communities (and media) were suppressing the free speech of the rebellious ID proponents. Need I point out the simple fact that denying one a venue in which to make a statement is not the same as denying one the right to make that statement. Just ask Bill O'Reilly, who has made a career out of shouting down opposing arguments before cutting te video feed of those who make those arguments. Like it or not, Fox News does NOT owe me the right to broadcast time on their network to refute Bull O'Rightey. I can find my own venue to do so.

So to all those ID morons out there who been "repressed" and denied tenure because of their slippery academics, quit your whining and run to the welcoming arms of the Discovery Institute. They have a nice, warm, welcoming venue for you in which to spew your misguided research.

Damnit! The Theory of Gravity is too depressing! So I will propose the new theory of Intelligent Falling where in some creator deity uses his time to push stuff down.

Yay! So much better! Now I can justify my useless existence to my own mind!

It is discouraging that the massive intellect that obviously resides in this community has to resort to juvenile name-calling and personal attacks. The subject matter is easily debunked by you (collectively), yet you continue to berate a single poster for daring to come into your forum with little-to-no argument.

Instead of educating, you belittle. Instead of explaining the faults, you go into tirades of self-righteousness(intended). One can almost see the spittle at the corners of your mouth as you attempt to shout down the uninformed, even as you complain about others doing the same to you. It is unnecessary and uncouth. Respect is not owed to them, but it is owed to yourselves.

ID may be the most idiotic psuedo-argument ever created. It may be the last sanctuary of the religious against the onslaught of modern science. That is hardly an excuse to show your lack of mastery of the language by responding as you have.

A rapier wit so rarely includes words of profanity, and when it does, it is quite pointed (hence the 'rapier'). I don't believe that "fuck-tard" (though somewhat amusing), ever qualifies. I do understand the frustration involved, but personal attacks reduce the writer's message.

The attacks on Stein for being a former speech-writer and actor simply muddy the water, when the facts are a crystal clear stream. I haven't witnessed anywhere that Stein pretends to have credentials he doesn't possess. He is an entertainer, and he is pushing a movie in the same way Michael Moore does - create controversy, collect money. The facts are a sideshow to the main event.

The movie will be the focus of sermons and church get-togethers, they will take field-trips to the movie theater as they did for The Passion of The Christ, and they will deliver to Ben Stein a mountain of cash.

And Ben Stein saw what he had Created, and it was Good (for Ben).

David, with all due respect, fuck you, you fucking fuck. Come back when you have more to fucking say than to fucking whine about our fucking lack of fucking manners. We hear it all the fucking time, every time the fucking same, from some fucking milquetoast who thinks he's a fucking angel. We don't give a fuck. You can get plenty of shit across even when using "profane" language. Fucking A.

Rey,

I wasn't concerned with manners and it wasn't a request for all to become literary angels. It would be an incredibly dull world if that happened.

I had plenty more to say than that in the post, but you evidently read only a few words.

Thanks for the amusing use of the words in your post, I understand your point. You did not grasp mine.

"The gang of prevaricators behind Ben Stein's Expelled movie had their own way of celebrating Darwin Day: they wrote a blog post that was a solid wall of lies and nonsense." PZ Myers

You can always detect a wirehead, egomaniac, whose debate skills consist of ad hominem attack, red herring, strawmen, appeals to popularity, and nearly every other form of sophistry and rhetorical fallacy one can find in a standard text on critical thinking. Thus the opening attack paragraph is devoid of any factual statement and nothing more than an extended ad hominem.

continuing......

"In a way, I'm impressed; I'd have to really struggle to write something that was such a dense array of concentrated stupid, but for them, it seems to be a natural talent, allowing them to blithely and effortlessly rattle off a succession of falsehoods without blushing."

More meaningless blather that could have been written by an editor in some nondescript yellow journalism rag in Eastern Europe in the late fifties.

The facts are that the neo-nazi darwin cult in control of Big Science have attempted to elevate the miserly contibutions to science by a manic depressive, bi-polar, recluse to the level of contribution to mankind of Abe Lincoln, the man who saved the United States of America, freed a couple of million human beings from slavery, and restored the moral purpose to the country.

If Darwin had been eaten by a pack of wild dogs on his unfortunate voyage nothing of any lasting consequence benefitting the human condition would have been lost.

We of course would have possibly fewer bone polishers with H.S. educations out digging up extinct animals, fewer people wasting money and manpower trying to create life from non-life without a single possible useful outcome in 100 years of failed efforts, and real science would have proceeded without the wasteful, meaningless side-trips and deadends that darwinism has occasioned by encourageing the stupidity of atheism to invade legitimate science.

Biology was and is a legitimate science, its efforts and results are extraordinary, but the plague of darwinism in its virilent, virus-like invasion of the field has rendered biology sterile, seemingly unable to get back to the job of following evidence, understanding how life works at the most detailed level, independent of abiogenesis, common ancestors, macro evolutionary events, decent with modification other than the most direct lineages in clearly defined and narrow biological lines.

The small vocal minority, the larger public special interest groups, secular humanist based political groups, and far left think tanks that band together to proclaim the critical importance of a world view of naturalism and humanist philosophy need to be smacked down by any and all legitimate means and the Expelled movie is a good start.

PZ and his fellow travelers are hardly at a loss for words concerning the subject of darwinism other than hiding his racist views and severe mental psychosis from the public for a century. His slides not withstanding , PZ is full of crap and the evidence is prima facia.

Nowhere in the Expelled essay does the writer imply that biologists as a community are racists, white-supremeists and thus PZ is a liar and a bold faced liar at that.

What is clear in the literature is that darwin was a racist, mentally ill, became a rabid atheist, understood nada about biology at the molecular level, and made not a single lasting practical contribution to biological science that would not have happened more quickly and efficiently than if he had never lived.

I am never surprised by this band of elitists including PZ in their defense of Marxism, I am aware of the politics of Dawkins, Gould, etc. while living off the U.S. taxpayer dole and teat his entire paltry, meaningless, and non-productive career.

It is quite amusing to see how Stein and the Expelled team have used the cynicism, egomania, anger, foment, and inability to keep their cool in effect to jujitsu the major cult spokespersons and their frailties into a profitable and extrremely clever expose of the Big Science enterprise and its stalking horse, darwinian evolution.

Did I mention PZ, that you are a liar, a nobody, and of no particular import in any respect.

But, but...Keith! Your whole comment was nothing but a string of screechy insults, and that's bad! You said so yourself.

Did you notice the first word in the title to this piece, "Ahistorical"? Your comment is likewise.

Darwin was less racist than many of his contemporaries, and advocated for justice for all races.

Darwin was not mentally ill at all; he maintained a vigorous and thoughtful correspondence with his peers throughout his life.

He was not an atheist, especially not a rabid one. He called himself an agnostic. You might want to read his autobiography, in which he touched on his love for his wife and his respect for her faith.

It's true. He wasn't a molecular biologist. But then, that field wasn't really established until the 1950s, so it's awfully silly to complain about that. I understand Jesus was also not a diesel mechanic, and Mohammed didn't know the first thing about polymer chemistry.

And Keith...who the hell are you?

Fucking hell. Keith is a liar and an ass.

Mr Eaton is apparently a retired engineer/widower who lives in Oklahoma City, and is a very annoying creationist troll who's been lurking about the 'Net, and recently came over to the Panda's Thumb to display his subpar social skills.

I grasped your point, David. It's just the same tiresome concern trolling we always get here. Attacking the tone of the message rather than the content.

And to Keith, anyone who thinks evolution makes biology sterile has his head so far up his ass that he could do his own colonoscopy.

Big Science, yodelay hee hoo.

Just someone who knows a paid empty suit when I see, hear, or read from one..that's you, based on every silly utterance you're made in the last decade.

You started attacking Stein, the producers, the distributors, and anyone allied with them on the issues, before you could possibly have seen the movie.

You and the other evo-bitchers who were in the film have two choices: either you are stupid enough go into the opponents camp and spill your guts in an egoistic diatribe and screed that if and now when viewed by the American public will reveal the true nature and intentions of the hard core evolutionary community and its foot soldiers or you are ignorant enough to so perform without the slightest idea that you might be putting you foot in your mouth.

Which is it PZ, stupid or ignorant?

Yes the Darwin who spent years putting together a case for origins that needed no non-natural processes to create life and deliver the entirity of the biology past, present and future. ..."the sensation one get when dunking ones head in cold water is in great degree the same as those previously ascribed to supernaturalism and religious insight"... yes no atheist here.

"The gang of prevaricators behind Ben Stein's Expelled movie had their own way of celebrating Darwin Day: they wrote a blog post that was a solid wall of lies and nonsense." PZ Myers

continuing......

More meaningless blather that could have been written by an editor in some nondescript yellow journalism rag in Eastern Europe in the late fifties.

If Darwin had been eaten by a pack of wild dogs on his unfortunate voyage nothing of any lasting consequence benefitting the human condition would have been lost.

Nowhere in the Expelled essay does the writer imply that biologists as a community are racists, white-supremeists and thus PZ is a liar and a bold faced liar at that.

Did I mention PZ, that you are a liar, a nobody, and of no particular import in any respect.
"The gang of prevaricators behind Ben Stein's Expelled movie had their own way of celebrating Darwin Day: they wrote a blog post that was a solid wall of lies and nonsense." PZ Myers

continuing......

More meaningless blather that could have been written by an editor in some nondescript yellow journalism rag in Eastern Europe in the late fifties.

If Darwin had been eaten by a pack of wild dogs on his unfortunate voyage nothing of any lasting consequence benefitting the human condition would have been lost.

Nowhere in the Expelled essay does the writer imply that biologists as a community are racists, white-supremeists and thus PZ is a liar and a bold faced liar at that.

Did I mention PZ, that you are a liar, a nobody, and of no particular import in any respect.

http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/number1/Darwinpapers1Htm.htm Revealing the for the quite mentally and physically perverse man he was.

http://ministries.tliquest.net/theology/evolution/Darwin's%20Racism.html

I see it's Tin-Foil Hat Time here on Pharyngula.

I am never surprised by this band of elitists including PZ in their defense of Marxism,

PZ is a marxist? who knew.

oh, I guess Keith did.

I am aware of the politics of Dawkins, Gould, etc. while living off the U.S. taxpayer dole and teat his entire paltry, meaningless, and non-productive career.

again, who knew that UK researchers lived off the US taxpayers?

Keith did.

Keith...

you're a complete and utter moron.

congratulations.

I mean, really, if PZ Myers really was of "no import," then why did Keith see fit to copy and paste the exact same rambling, incoherent rant twice?

You can call me names all you want, but boring me with this copy and paste crap where you just take up space is a good way to get banned.

That's a warning.

hard core evolutionary community and its foot soldiers

PZ has foot soldiers???

Hey, can I get a promotion?

a nobody, and of no particular import

Hey, that's General PZ Myers you're talking about! Show some respect!!

boring me with this copy and paste crap

I think his Screed-o-mat broke down after it expelled the first one, so he had to make do with repeating himself, twice.

Obviously, the silly thing wasn't intelligently designed.

You started attacking Stein, the producers, the distributors, and anyone allied with them on the issues, before you could possibly have seen the movie.

Well, if they lie, they should be pointed out for lying. The ID crowd has long been in the business of lying, and this movie looks to be more of the same, judging from the trailer and the early reviews.

Which is it PZ, stupid or ignorant?

They interviewed him under false pretenses. And why are they so scared to post the whole, unedited interview? Come back when you don't stink of desperation.

That settles it: The crew who put up that post were the egomaniac wireheads. When PZ tore apart the post by pointing out all the lies, what did they do? Whined that he actually took a little time. They didn't address any of the substance.

They told lies, hence PZ accurately labeled them as prevaricators.

[Long tinfoil hat screed involving ignoring all the evidence for evolution and the utter lack of evidence for ID]

Where's the substance?

That's very, very irrelevant ad hominem, even more irrelevant than is inherent in ad hominems. WHO CARES ABOUT DARWIN? Darwin's irrelevant to the argument. He's dead, got some right, got some wrong. We fixed the wrong. Darwin is just for this history books and occasional bouts of nostalgia. Why focus on Darwin? Oh, I know: Because IDers can't discuss the real issues, so they need an irrelevant scapegoat to ad hominem.

Did you, or did you not read anything anyone said in this post and comment thread? I think not.

Keith, your actions and single-minded devotion to irrelevant derails demonstrates that you're an even bigger wuss than that Philip troll over at the Expelled blog. Are you now going to start screaming for 2 more months of damage control before we can see the PZ interview? We're ready to see the whole interview now. And yet, the people at Expelled blog are chronically scared to post the video.

I wonder if they snipped out the bit the reviewers found unremarkable and destroyed the rest to save face.

It never ceases to amaze me, never ever, how completely arrogant and clueless people like this keith fellow are in the above.

He clearly knows nothing about Darwin and even less about biology and evolution yet he is so self assured(deluded)he feels ok attacking PZ personally. I presume he has never met PZ and yet verbally assaults him and not his position.

How small. He represents the worst of his religion quite adequately.

PZ has foot soldiers???

Hasn't technology advanced to the point where we should all get Segways?

destroyed the rest to save face.

Tthere is no saving face on this one.

They closed that door long ago. The only money they will see for future productions will have to be from the same sources as funded this one.

Just like Dembski, Wells, etc., they have decided the career path they wish to follow. Honesty and integrity had to be left by the side of the road before even coming close to where they are now.

There is no room left to "save face". There is no going back. Dembski himself occasionally laments this fact, and it is the source of much of his angst towards Baylor.

I wonder if Ben Stein realizes this? He'll never be employable in regular entertainment channels ever again.

meh, no big loss.

I wonder if Ben Stein realizes this? He'll never be employable in regular entertainment channels ever again.
meh, no big loss.

Would if this were true. Remember the failures of Mel Gibson after his anti-semitic rampages, and how Apocalypto failed so miserably?

Hollywood isn't some liberal bastion--it's pure capitalism. Sell the tickets and you're good in their eyes. Truth? Who cares as long as the seats are filled.

That's why conservative criticism of Hollywood is so laughable. The movie studios are better capitalists than anyone at the Cato Institute could ever dream of being.

Hollywood isn't some liberal bastion--it's pure capitalism.

exactly.

do you think "Expelled" will be a capitalistic success story, calling to Hollywood execs to shell out the bucks for more of same?

hardly. You of course recall that they are actually bribing groups to come and see it, yes?

It's not Stein's insanity alone that has Hollywood turning it's collective back on him, it's throwing his hat in the ring with perennial losers like the producers of Expelled.

In fact, it's quite likely that this is more "end result" than beginning, even if it is the final door closing for him. I'm sure if I were privy to all of Stein's career decisions over the last 10 years, I'd see a pattern emerging that would clarify exactly how he ended up being involved with these losers to begin with.

The movie studios are better capitalists than anyone

I dunno, I keep hearing how weird and... Byzantine the movie business is. Really. As in "Byzantium". Have you heard about how Waterworld was made?

I am never surprised by this band of elitists including PZ in their defense of Marxism,

PZ isn't a Marxist. To quote a classic comic film, "Communism is just a Red herring."

I am aware of the politics of Dawkins, Gould, etc. while living off the U.S. taxpayer dole and teat his entire paltry, meaningless, and non-productive career.

So Dawkins, who holds the Charles Simonyi Chair of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University in England is living off the U.S. taxpayer dole?

So is Gould, who doesn't qualify for the word "living" in any sense and hasn't done for FIVE years? And who knew that Harvard was a public university?

Ichthyic, it's like I said earlier: Intelligent Design is such a lost cause that not even Hollywood magic can save it.

Certainly, if Intelligent Design's final and greatest defenders turn out to be a dimwitted deadpan like Ben Stein, and a rabid, hatefully incoherent twit like Keith Eaton, I'm surprised that Creationists have not returned to the drawing board to see what new hocus crapus they can re-spin Creationism as ten years ago already.

And who knew that Harvard was a public university?

Keith did.

http://video.aol.com/partner/hulu/the-simpsons-stone-cutters-song/9BPs1…

I'm surprised that Creationists have not returned to the drawing board to see what new hocus crapus they can re-spin Creationism as ten years ago already.

if they were that smart, we'd be in trouble.

still, I'm sure they are. It will just take time, like the formation of ID after "creation science" did.

It takes time to make up good BS if your smart, or the same amount of time to make up lame BS if you're these guys.

Well, I suppose you're right, Ichthyic.

At the very least, it will be good for a morbid little chuckle to see how much rope they're going to hang themselves with.

I believe the primary theme of the film is to demonstrate the consequences scientists and scholars face when they postulate theories contrary to conventional wisdom. The daring few in history who navigated these waters have paid a predictable price. Some were mocked, ridiculed, and humiliated. Others were ostracized or imprisoned. Questioning the "great minds of our day" is not for the faint of heart, and many posts here bear witness to this. I do find it mildly ironic that a blog intended to discredit the merits of the film have actually buttressed one of its central tenets.

"Man does not attain the status of Galileo merely because he is persecuted; he must also be right." ~SJG

I believe the primary theme of the film is to demonstrate the consequences scientists and scholars face when they postulate theories contrary to conventional wisdom. The daring few in history who navigated these waters have paid a predictable price. Some were mocked, ridiculed, and humiliated. Others were ostracized or imprisoned. Questioning the "great minds of our day" is not for the faint of heart, and many posts here bear witness to this. I do find it mildly ironic that a blog intended to discredit the merits of the film have actually buttressed one of its central tenets.

So, then, why did they have to lie to the people they interviewed, and why do they have to make false statements?

And others were utter kooks whose 'theories' merely amounted to ossified prejudices or insane ramblings.

Questioning the "great minds of our day" is not for the faint of heart, and many posts here bear witness to this.

Good!

If it were easy to overturn an established scientific consensus every day of the week, then the cycling through new ideas like a hyperactive gerbil on cocaine would ensure that no scientists ever got anything useful done.

I do find it mildly ironic that a blog intended to discredit the merits of the film have actually buttressed one of its central tenets.

Why is that ironic? It seems perfectly consistent to me. People have been dismissive of IDiots. That's perfectly clear. The reason people are dismissive is that ID has no merit.

Hey Healer,

Why didn't they bother to challeng the theory of gravity? If they truly wanted to be daring.

'So, then, why did they have to lie to the people they interviewed, and why do they have to make false statements?'

I cannot speak to the specific methods of the filmmakers as I don't know what they actually did, but I will say that it is doubtful the interviewees would have been that candid had they known the intended purpose of the resulting material. Conducting an interview under false pretenses is a very effective tactic at eliciting the intended response. While it may be disingenuous, it's hardly something unique to this film. Whether the filmmakers lied to their subjects about why they were being interviewed or not, the opinions expressed are no less valid.

I believe the primary theme of the film is to demonstrate the consequences scientists and scholars face when they postulate theories contrary to conventional wisdom.

then you understand nothing of what happens when new hypotheses are introduced in science.

for one thing, it happens all the time. for another, IT'S ENCOURAGED WITHIN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY.

what you appear to be completely ignorant of is that this film does not intend to demonstrate the process of what happens to new hypotheses within the scientific community, what it intends is to show what happens to unsupported mindless drivel, and then paint that as being "victimized".

as a comparison, since you claim the title "healer"...

If I came into a medical office, and proclaimed I could cure all ills simply by hitting all your patients over the head with a baseball bat, would you think my idea deserves "equal time"?

get it now?

Conducting an interview under false pretenses is a very effective tactic at eliciting the intended response.

Yeah, they were crowing that they caught Dawkins saying that science, and particularly evolution, are antithetical to Christianity. Something he's been stating from his pulpit every chance he could.

See, the thing is that these people are busily lying all over the place, they're abominably ignorant, and they presuppose that scientists are hiding something. The fact is, however, that there has been no revelation coming out of the blogs and promotional materials, since what you see is pretty much what you get with PZ and Dawkins.

Not that getting a real revelation would absolve the lying a-holes of their Xian commitments to honesty. My point at present is that it was their own ignorance and intellectual dishonesty that even suggested to them that they would need to be liars for Jesus, rather than, oh I don't know, reading what these people actually wrote. They're pathetic in nearly every way.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

they presuppose that scientists are hiding something

well, that's the idea they are trying to sell, anyway. Whether they believe it or not.

I'm sure a part of this is the producers of the film relying on the idea of "conspiracies sell" to raise funding.

just ask Oliver Stone.

'Hey Healer,

Why didn't they bother to challeng the theory of gravity? If they truly wanted to be daring'

I don't know, but blind allegiance to any theory is foolish at best. Gravity is a scientific theory, not incontrovertible fact. So too is Darwinism. Gravity is demonstrably provable, but that doesn't make it fact. I could postulate that gravity is not an omnipotent presence and scientific "law", but merely a by-product of a greater universal force. In the absence of, or modification of said force, the laws of gravity would no longer be applicable therefore rendering the theory of gravity suspect or entirely invalid. If anyone were to suggest such a theory, they would be ridiculed and mocked as an idiot. Based on some of the posts I have read, that would be a perfectly reasonable and welcome response by the "scientific community".

I don't know, but blind allegiance to any theory is foolish at best

good thing that only exists amongst religious apologists then, right?

sure doesn't happen in any scientific community I've ever been involved with.

Gravity is demonstrably provable, but that doesn't make it fact.

LOL

Ok, you're an idiot, i get it now.

here let me fix your statement for you:

Gravity is readily observable, which makes it a fact.

Explaining how it works is gravitational theory.

Evolution is readily observable, which makes it fact.

The theory of evolution is a collection of tested and sustained (after many tens of thousands of individual experiments) hypotheses that attempt to explain this observed fact.

religion is based on imaginary and completely unobservable dogma; maintained only by forced transmission (certainly not by testing observable phenomena).

I doubt you will get this, as you are likely hopelessly confused about what constitutes a scientific hypothesis to begin with, but maybe somebody else lurking about with more brains will.

I could postulate that gravity is not an omnipotent presence and scientific "law", but merely a by-product of a greater universal force. In the absence of, or modification of said force, the laws of gravity would no longer be applicable therefore rendering the theory of gravity suspect or entirely invalid. If anyone were to suggest such a theory, they would be ridiculed and mocked as an idiot.

Actually, what you have there is not a theory, it's vapourous speculation. There is, however, a theory which proposes that what we experience as gravitation is an effect of another 'force', spacetime curvature. It's called the general theory of relativity. If you want to argue against it, you probably will be treated like an idiot if you demonstrate that you don't know what it is you're talking about, although you'll get points for novelty at sci.physics.relativity, since they mostly see people arguing against the special theory.

That is all anyone has been doing here. The producers of Expelled and Ben Stein have demonstrated themselves to be laughably ignorant of even the basics of the theory which they are critiquing, and so they are naturally treated with disdain until they decide to be honest about what it is they don't know.

Based on some of the posts I have read, that would be a perfectly reasonable and welcome response by the "scientific community".

The scientific community is under no obligations to be nice to people who step on its turf and proceed to urinate on the lawn. The scientific community is very skeptical, as any presenter at a symposium or conference will know, and that's a good value to have. It keeps one grounded in what we do know and what we do not, and prevents flights of fancy from going too far. It's not always perfect (e.g. evolutionary psychology, string theory, etc.), but there's a correction eventually.

Thank you for proving my point Ichthyic. Your attitude and the tactics you have resorted to are precisly what the filmmakers were attempting to expose. I can only hope for their sake that they had an opportunity to interview you (or someone like you) for the film. You would have provided all the fodder they needed. Thanks for making it so easy. :)

Thank you for proving my point Ichthyic. Your attitude and the tactics you have resorted to are precisly what the filmmakers were attempting to expose.

thankyou for proving my point that you wouldn't get what I was telling you. Can i piss on your lawn now?

I'll be sure to find a doctor's office somewhere where I can expound on my fantastic theory of baseball-batism.

congratulations on your continued lack of reading comprehension skills. You do indeed make it so easy.

shorter "The Healer": I may be wrong about absolutely everything, but you're a meanie.

I take it that the weevils claim is that only public institutions apply for and receive public grants for scientific research purposes, the writing of books, papers, holding of conferences,etc. and that the purchase of Mr. Dawkin's books by public libraries whether associated with higher education or municipal convenience, that his many publically sponsored speaking engagements are somehow sheltered from the expenditure of public funding.

Such shallow thinking is unfortunately the warp and woof of the historical and instant cerebral capacities of the particularly narrow and shriveled intellects that constitute the evolutionary community of true believers.

All of those interviewed for Expelled of the PZM ilk can of course continue to proclaim their Miranda rights, forced interrogation, coerced confessions, and such other practices as they choose to borrow from the O.J. vocabulary, but the facts are what they are and I suspect they will be quite illuminating to the public at large.

The Expelled essay merely rehearses the historical facts that Darwins theory was coopted by philosophical, socioeconomic, and political thinkers resulting in allied theories and practices whose harmful and destructive effects are undeniable by the rational mind.

Understanding that it would require a logarithmic expansion of the weevil reading spectrum to comprehend certain elements of reality I nevertheless suggest the enlightenment you could experience by a consideration of Intellectual Morons, From Dawn to Decadence, Telling the Truth About History, and After Virtue...for a beginning... would be well, illuminating.

I'm sure we can all applaud PZM's philosophical dedication to his ideal of philosophical and political optimism. Ahem!!

"As far as optimistic theories go, has this bozo ever read the Communist Manifesto? Communism is an incredibly optimistic idea -- human beings are perfectable, societies are working towards an inevitable workers' utopia, etc. It's highly non-Darwinian, unlike capitalism, which is very Darwinian. It's like they don't even think their own arguments through" -------Not to the degreee of Karl Marx apparently.

Unlike Obama Myers, when I quote Johnson I find an attribution to be an intellectual necessity.

"Nothing has so exposed men of learning to contempt and ridicule as their ignorance of things which are known to all but themselves. Those who have been taught to consider the institutions of the schools as giving the last perfection to human abilities are surprised to see men wrinkled with study, yet wanting to be instructed in the minute circumstances of propriety, or the necessary form of daily transaction; and quickly shake off their reverence for modes of education which they find to produce no ability above the rest of mankind."
Johnson: Rambler #137 (July 9, 1751)

We do applaud Ben and his team for furthering the above most needed efforts.

shorter "The Healer": I may be wrong about absolutely everything, but you're a meanie.

of course. It was a self-fulfilling prophecy on the part of "the healer" to begin with. shocker.

even shorter me:

Fuck these idiots with a bumpy stick.

I'm convinced it simply isn't worth the time any more to give their idiocy an ear.

I wasted over a minute trying to explain to it what the difference was between observed fact and theories constructed to explain observed facts.

I figured it would be an exercise only of value to some imagined lurkers.

a prophecy that came to fulfillment as rapidly as I expected it would.

;)

I'm guessing nullifidian wasted almost 5 minutes with a more thorough explanation that was of course completely ignored.

I wonder if "the healer" will ever grasp why I hate it so?

I'm guessing not.

yes, Keith, tell us again how UK researchers Dawkins and Gould relied on US taxpayer dollars to fund their research and publications again.

please do; and make sure to move your goalposts ever further backwards as you explain.

Obama Myers

LOL

you're such a moron it's making my day, Keith.

please, continue!

unlike "the healer", you're such a fantastic moron you're actually funny.

OTOH, we haven't seen a good disemvowelment around these parts in a while...

hey, Keith:

Nothing has so exposed men of learning to contempt and ridicule as their ignorance of things which are known to all but themselves.

if you were actually learned, I would advise you to apply that to yourself.

no point though, is there?

All of those interviewed for Expelled of the PZM ilk can of course continue to proclaim their Miranda rights, forced interrogation, coerced confessions, and such other practices as they choose to borrow from the O.J. vocabulary, but the facts are what they are and I suspect they will be quite illuminating to the public at large.

So then, why are the Expelled crew so hesitant to provide this illumination to the public by releasing the unedited, uncensored interview.

If you weren't so occupied with wussing out, Keith, you'd know that we're only exposing the character of IDers as continual liars by pointing it out when they lie. We aren't the least bit afraid of the facts getting out. The Expelled crew is.

The Expelled essay merely rehearses the historical facts that Darwins theory was coopted by philosophical, socioeconomic, and political thinkers resulting in allied theories and practices whose harmful and destructive effects are undeniable by the rational mind.

And yet, these people were more than willing to burn the Origin of Species or send scientists studying evolution to the gulags or the firing squad.

And, of course, it's completely irrelevant. What you're talking about, Keith, is like calling Newton a horrible person because some people could use his theory to accurately hurl ballistic shells. The consequences of evil people who are "inspired" by facts doesn't undermine whether or not they're facts. Of course, you conveniently leave out all the good life-saving advances that came from evolution.

Oh, and it's not Darwin's theory anymore. We've moved on since those days. Why the Darwin fetish? Do you deliberately mention Darwin in order to distract people with utter irrelevancies?

We do applaud Ben and his team for furthering the above most needed efforts.

How does lying and devotion to irrelevance further education?

So, Keith, are you going to push for the unedited Myers interview to get exposure, or are you once again going to wuss out?

So, Keith, are you going to push for the unedited Myers interview to get exposure, or are you once again going to wuss out?

I can see it now:

Keith's eyes, having read this last sentence, will blink once... slowly... and then his brain will go on as if it had never received information from the eyes.

in short, his brain will completely ignore this and you will never receive a cogent response to it.

keep trying, though, it's educational.

we really are dealing with people living in a constant state of denial and projection.

"Your attitude and the tactics you have resorted to are precisly what the filmmakers were attempting to expose."

You mean his slightly gruff tone? His use of the word "idiot"?

My GOD, you people are crybabies. Or possibly masochists. "Oh, ridicule me HARDER Mr. Darwinist, HUMILIATE me, I've been NAUGHTY! Are we getting this all on tape? Cuz that REALLY makes me hot..."

Ah, but never mind all that. Did I just read that our esteemed host is a RED?! *gasp* *faint*

My GOD, you people are crybabies. Or possibly masochists. "Oh, ridicule me HARDER Mr. Darwinist, HUMILIATE me, I've been NAUGHTY! Are we getting this all on tape? Cuz that REALLY makes me hot..."

oh, now that reminds me of a certain fictional story about Ann Coulter.

should I?

of course:

http://ifuckedanncoulterintheasshard.blogspot.com/

I'm sure that will give our visitors the vapors.

Ah, but never mind all that. Did I just read that our esteemed host is a RED?! *gasp* *faint*

*sniff* too bad McCarthyism isn't popular any more.

I think i could've gotten a reward for reporting him!

Now if Keith could show us how PZ is a terrorist... a call to Homeland Security might result in some reward, yes?

Keith?

help us out here.

Wow, Ichtyic, thx for the link. This is really great writing, also taking a look at George Bush's Diary...

"The Republican Party is the party of minding other people's business. People sometimes mistake this as trying to 'legislate morality.' We are not trying to legislate morality; we just want to make what we view as immorality illegal. Can't folks see the difference? Peep through a few windows on the campaign trail; listen to some private phone calls. Show folks what you stand for!"

Smashing !

By the way, Eaton's moronic nonsense is just another cross-post from the "Expelled" blog, which makes sense if you scan that mass of bullshit.

I never read his shit straight any more, since he's merely a blithering idiot. The following is what he wrote back when he still pretended to know something about science:

Prima Facia evidence for the plot, substance, and need for this movie is amply provided by Glen Davidson's posts.

Indeed he is the poster boy for the hubris, egomania, and sophistry common to the evo community.

One has only to read any of Dawkins materials among a myriad of writers of the evo true believer cult to refute any claim that random mutation and natural selection are not the primary drivers of evo theory...both micro and macro evolution.

Since the proposed selection pressures of weather, climate, geographical separation, cosmic events, castrophes of various kinds, predation, natural death, accidents...etc. are ALL RANDOM EVENTS and totally unpredictable with any realibility and totally unsustainable for any period of time required to effect evolutionary change of any significance...it should be clear to anyone that the entire theory is based on random events and by definition cannot predict anything with particularity. (this is from the comments from the second blog post at "Expelled", by the producers, comment #103)

He identifies some of the most important selection pressures there as "totally unpredictable" and that thus evolution is based on "random events and by definition cannot predict anything with particularity." Showing what a fuckup he is, plus why he's merely into vile diatribes rather than his many lies about being a scientist that he used to spout.

Of course I answered the screeching moron, but that's not important now.

What does matter is that he's just spamming this forum, since he's cross-posting without indicating that he is. The same, or nearly the same, remarks are at comment #233 on the most recent blogpost, meaning that he apparently values such drivel so much that he'll scatter around.

I'd guess that he's jealous that Ben Stein is rapidly becoming the biggest celebrity ass around, and he's going to try to prove that he can be a grand old ass just like his scientifically-illiterate hero.

Btw, I wouldn't have responded even obliquely as I did here to the egregious troll if others had not already done so (it's a no-fault observation, I'm simply saying that I'd have ignored him). He's too damn ignorant for me to respond to him much more than I already have.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

It has been a week of such shocking revelations, I don't know if I can take any more!

-Dawkins caught arguing against religion!
-PZ is in the Expelled movie!
-PZ's tactics include ridicule and strong language!
-The full title of Origin has the word 'RACES' in it!!!

he's merely a blithering idiot*

*in case it wasn't obvious?

;)

I wish to apologize to anyone offended by the screed from Glen. I have been mopping up his butt on several posts for a few weeks and he goes berserk quite frequently.

He is quite the intellectual as you can see by the cursing, name calling, and other techniques reminisent of the Aristotelian methods....LOL!

Or you might gather that he is a 4th rate scholar stuck in some non-descript cellar washing test tubes for grad students.

In some dozens of posts he has never once even approached refutation of my logical presentations by other than irrational ad hominem attacks and loud screeching noises.

He's one of theose weak little failed psuudo-intellectuals for whom the various e-forums permit them a release of their hostilities against the world, God, and anything else they can blame their meaniningless little failed lives on.

Sorry Glen, but your just not up to the task of rational debate.

And the only thing more random than most so called selective pressures that occurs to me is the frequency of your psychotic outbursts and the inner workings of your truly disturbed mind.

You surely must understand by now that I hold you in derision, ridicule, and pity.

Shorter Keith Eaton: "I may be wrong about absolutely everything, but Glen's a meanie."

So, no substance from Keith. All he does is use Humpty Dumpty to change the definition of "ad hominem" so that he can conveniently ignore the points that have been made.

That, and I still don't see him calling for Expelled to release the unedited interview footage. Still afraid of that leaking out?

I wish to apologize to anyone offended by the screed from Glen. I have been mopping up his butt on several posts for a few weeks and he goes berserk quite frequently.

He is quite the intellectual as you can see by the cursing, name calling, and other techniques reminisent of the Aristotelian methods....LOL!

Ooh, the fuckhead proves once again that he lies without compunction or conscience. He hasn't even responded to me in months, but essentially he lies like JAD does, transparently and quite possibly obsessively.

Plus, what MAJeff said.

Fuck yourself, Keith, I'm not going to deal with your anti-Christ hatred any further on this thread (not a promise, certainly my intention).

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

I wish to apologize to anyone offended by the screed from Glen.

ROFLMAO!

goddamnit, Glen, why are you so fucking offensive all the fucking time??

...my logical presentations ...

damnit, now I'm pissed, Keith just made me spit out an entire mouthful of my favorite coffee.

I'm sending you a request for reimbursement, retard.

You surely must understand by now that I hold you in derision, ridicule, and pity.

no-no, what you are perceiving is how others feel about you, and then being that you are only able to communicate via projection, you then project that perception outwards.

acceptance is the first step on the road to recovery, there, Keith.

goddamnit, Glen, why are you so fucking offensive all the fucking time??

Well, I have to admit that I started it. On the Expelled blog I referred to evidence, and I made sense. This is deeply offensive to people like Keith, whose primary religious taboo is against evidence and sense.

I'd apologize for such offenses, but you know, I'm just plain too evil and mean to apologize for offending Keith with reason, and for truthfully describing his actions.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

'I'm guessing nullifidian wasted almost 5 minutes with a more thorough explanation that was of course completely ignored.
I wonder if "the healer" will ever grasp why I hate it so?
I'm guessing not.'

The observations of you and nullifidian were not lost on me, nor were they ignored. It's simply not worth engaging in scientific debate as that was not my purpose for posting to begin with. I hope for your sake that you will recognize the condescending attitudes of you and your contemporaries is what got you into this mess to begin with. The more effective you are at dismissing detractors as idiots and demonstrating that the people questioning you are intellectual inferiors, the more you feel it validates your position. That is precisely the attitude that the filmmakers wanted to expose, and was the only point I was trying to make.

The fervor at which you defend your scientific ideology is reminiscent of debates I've had with religious zealots. You are so blinded by your doctrine and so assured of your methodologies that the mere notion that ONE scientific theory (let alone the entire ethos) might possibly be in question is so utterly incompressible to you that you demonize and attack anyone who would even suggest it.

I will freely admit I have no business swimming in the illuminati pool with you; I simply have a pension for bullshit masquerading as intellect. I will leave as quietly as I came, but you need not make excuses for the statements made by the Darwinian prophets you dare not question. If they cannot defend what they said, perhaps they will need to evolve.

I will freely admit I have no business swimming in the illuminati pool with you

Again, the levels of idiocy are amazing. It's all conspiracy. It can't have anything to do with the fact that the Healer is simply wrong. No, it's a conspiracy keeping his nonsense from being recognized....

blah blah blah blah

I simply have a pension for bullshit masquerading as intellect.

Given such an inane substitution of "pension" for "penchant," I only too readily believe that you have a penchant "for bullshit masquerading as intellect."

The only trouble is, we can see through your lack of intellect to your bullshit very easily.

But thanks for the laugh at your expense. I've always found you IDiots to be entirely self-sacrificing in that respect, as you attempt to sound smart and instead sound, well, like you do.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

On the Expelled blog I referred to evidence, and I made sense. This is deeply offensive to people like Keith, whose primary religious taboo is against evidence and sense.

yes, because their religious leaders tell them that evidence is only there to confuse and mislead the righteous.

fossils were planted by Satan, after all.

indeed, Keith is right in thinking that there is little point in regarding him with anything more than derision and ridicule and pity.

it just came out bass-ackwards in his last post (denial and projection tend to force such constructions).

tell you what, though, I can only really feel pity for those like Nisbet who think people like Keith are "reachable" if only they could find the "right frame" for the information.

there is no hope for them, only for the generations that follow, hence the huge resistance to things like adopting the word "evolution" into the Florida state educational standards. They can see the end, and they know it.

every time they mention the "waterloo" of evolutionary theory, I see a projection of their own subconsciously realized fears.

The observations of you and nullifidian were not lost on me, nor were they ignored

they might not have been lost on you (highly doubtful), but in fact they were ignored in your response.

I simply have a pension for bullshit masquerading as intellect.

gee, guess what?
so do we.

*sniff* *sniff*

and I smell something right powerful coming off of you.

I hope for your sake that you will recognize the condescending attitudes of you and your contemporaries is what got you into this mess to begin with.

and i hope for YOUR sake that you begin to recognize that it was the attitudes of armchair scientists like yourself that caused the inevitable response from scientists.

if I come and piss on your lawn every day, at first you might try to explain to me why you don't like it, and why it's not appropriate.

after the 100th time, you're likely to respond by calling me an idiot and telling me to get the fuck off your lawn, eh?

now get off our lawn, you fucking idiot.

I will leave as quietly as I came, but you need not make excuses for the statements made by the Darwinian prophets you dare not question.

*looks around*

anybody here know any "Darwinian prophets"?

anyone?

Bueller?

Beuller?

*here's a hint for ya, "healer": look up "projection" sometime.

I hope for your sake that you will recognize the condescending attitudes of you and your contemporaries is what got you into this mess to begin with.

Let's see. Scientists going about their work, investigating and producing knowledge. Then religionists keep trying to shove unscientific nonsense into those scientists' faces...and when scientists get fed up and say, "Stop with the bullshit already!" it's all their own fault because they're not nice enough to the bullshitters.

I will leave as quietly as I came, but you need not make excuses for the statements made by the Darwinian prophets you dare not question. If they cannot defend what they said, perhaps they will need to evolve.

Then it's a good thing that we scientists CAN defend what we say about the science, you fucking moron. What we say about pretentious gits and arsewipes like you in our spare time is just a bonus.

I will freely admit I have no business swimming in the illuminati pool with you

now, if they would only practice what they preach.

shorter:

learn when to STFU.

Seriously, you don't HAVE to make yourself look like an idiot by pontificating on things you haven't the slightest clue about.

nobody is forcing your hand.

really.

Actually, Ichthyic, if you replace "have a pension for" with "tend to mistake bullshit for," he makes a little more sense.

Honestly, if Healer and Keith are Expelled's defense against Professor Myers, the movie has already crashed and burned before it's taken off.

I mean, Keith is an incoherent psychopath who uses Jesus Christ as a reason to hate people, and Healer is a slimy, hypocritical moron who is physically incapable of realizing that lying to an interviewee in order "to get a candid response" is still lying, and that the Bible strictly prohibits lying when it mentions "Thou shalt not bear false witness," and mentions that there is no excuse to break this commandment (that doing it in God's name makes it even worse, in fact).

the movie has already crashed and burned before it's taken off.

when you have to bribe large portions of your intended audience to even come and see your film, I think even the makers realize the failure this thing was going to be.

frankly, I doubt they even care.

of course, most people like Keith will just be happy to see us having to waste time cleaning up after the mess it will cause, just like we have to waste time cleaning up after Ken Hamm, or Kent Hovind, or any of the myriad other prevaricating morons out there.

Correct me if I'm wrong. And I very well maybe. Didnt' Darwin on his death bed say something about believing in ID, and not renounce, but take back some of his studies, findings, or what ever you want to call them?

Correct me if I'm wrong.

consider yourself corrected, and the point irrelevant in any case.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG001.html

You're wrong. no such thing took place, but creationists love to spread that lie.

Valid point.

Another pure question that is all.

Has anyone ever read this book...

"true science agrees with the bible"

I am thinking about getting it, but not sure it'll be worth my time....

Thanks

they love to spread that lie, even though it wouldn't matter one whit as to the veracity and efficacy of evolutionary theory, even if Darwin was a baby eating, psychopathic murderer.

they can't seem to get it through their heads that science is not religion, has no prophets, and nobody is sacred.

not surprising, given that their only means of communication is through projection.

not saying that Sonny is one, but it needs to be said in general, given the commonality of this particular myth.

and what about this thing....

http://www.answersincreation.org/argument/E611_creation_science.htm

It seems that the guy is now second guessing himself?

"true science agrees with the bible"

have you ever heard of the "no true Scottsman" fallacy?

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

to answer your question, just based on the title alone, I'd be a bit put off by it.

but then, never judge a book by its cover, right?

... you can safely assume that anything printed in AIG is going to be misinformation at best, and outright lies at worst.

go check out the talk origins archives if you want to spend some limited time on the issue.

Correct you are. You can never judge a book by it's cover.

At the same time, I generally question all books. Information is information. But how are we supposed to test all things?

And if science is an ever increasing thing. Are we going to be thought of as "dumb" in only a matter of years?

Same goes for the Bible. How are we supposed to "test" it, using scientific methods? I've heard the Bible and history go hand and hand....

Didnt' Darwin on his death bed say something about believing in ID

The term "intelligent design" to refer specifically to the teleological argument was not coined until the late 1980s, so he could not have said that he "believed in ID". Perhaps you mean "believing in God". Well, no, he didn't say that on his deathbed, either.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/04/the_death_of_darwin.php

I've heard the Bible and history go hand and hand...

The person who said that was, well, wrong.

I laugh at the phrase ID. People seems like they are too afraid to say Creation anymore.

I merely said that, as a phun.

And if science is an ever increasing thing. Are we going to be thought of as "dumb" in only a matter of years?

nobody thinks Newton was dumb, but relativity has relegated aspects of his mechanics to the dustbin of history.

we embrace with positive attitude the idea that things are constantly being challenged and changing.

the theory of evolution itself has "evolved" far beyond the ideas Darwin put forth in his original work.

We stand on the shoulders of those that came before us.

I hate it so

Before this thread, I never would have thought that Ichthyic could put me in mind of JAD...

Ichy, I like your version better, though.

or, you could grab the original from Aristotle:

If I have seen further it is by standing on ye shoulders of Giants.

er, crap, I meant Newton.

why did I say Aristotle?

*shakes head*

going for coffee now.

I thank you for your time Ichthyic.

I have to admit.

I am a believer in the risen Lord Jesus Christ.

I know next to nothing about science.

Next to nothing about Biblical history.

I can barely remember the sermon from last sunday.

What I do know, is what's happened in my life since deciding to follow Christ. His teachings have shaped my life, and allowed me to experience Love, Joy and Peace, amongst other things, on a level in which I could never of fathomed.

The only proof that I have that God is real, is what's been done in my life. And the lives of others I have been blessed to be around.

It's safe to say that on all levels, people have implemented their own agenda and taken the name of Evolution, Christianity, Muslim etc, and drug it through the mud. It is truly a shame to human kind.

I did not come on here to argue only to ask questions.

Thank you for your time.

er, crap, I meant Newton.

why did I say Aristotle?

*shakes head*

going for coffee now.

Maybe it's your subconscious subtly trying to tell you that you have a craving for Greek food?

And if science is an ever increasing thing. Are we going to be thought of as "dumb" in only a matter of years?

I'm not sure what you are asking. "Science" is increasing, but even there, science is the aggregate knowledge acquired by the the human race. No individual human knows all of science. So I suppose that in a way, we are all dumber than what we have in general learned.

How are we supposed to "test" it, using scientific methods?

The Bible makes several types of statements:

Some are generally true - the basic geography of the middle east is laid out, and some parts have been confirmed by archeology. We know, for example, that the area where the garden of Eden is vaguely alleged to have been was once part of the Fertile Crescent. We know that Egypt was and is a real place, and that the kings were called Pharaohs, and the the Nile river was important to the people of Egypt.

But the bible also makes lots of untestable claims: Were the ancient Israelites ever really slaves in Egypt? We've deciphered lots of hieroglyphs, and little has been found in confirmation. Did the Egyptian ever suffer 10 plagues? Not so far as can be found. And so on.

The Bible also makes statements which could not have been tested at the time it was written, but which are testable by modern science - and which have been shown to be false. The bible claims that the earth is around 6000 years old, and that there was a global flood. Geologists examined the earth for signs of the flood, and found evidence of lots of floods at different periods of time, but no signs of a global one. And of course, multiple dating methods put the current age of the Earth at around 4.5 billion years old, which shows the bible's claim to have been false.

What I do know, is what's happened in my life since deciding to follow Christ. His teachings have shaped my life, and allowed me to experience Love, Joy and Peace, amongst other things, on a level in which I could never of fathomed.

The only proof that I have that God is real, is what's been done in my life. And the lives of others I have been blessed to be around.

So then, why do you need more proof, Sonny?

Go out, and follow the advice that the Book of Ecclesiastics gave, and live life, which is the reason why we put on this Earth to begin with. It wouldn't hurt to buy some books, too, like, say, Ray Troll's Cruisin' The Fossil Highway, or Fossil Fishes by John Maisey, either.

I don't recall ever saying I needed more proof, but I will look into those books.

Thanks.

I did not come on here to argue only to ask questions.

...and stand on your soapbox?

feel free to ask questions. many of us have tons of information relevant to questions one might have of any theory within biology, or other branches of science.

also feel just as free NOT to pontificate on the origins or maintenance of your religious beliefs.

thanks.

if you are looking for those more interested in seeing how science and faith do not conflict, I think you might be a bit more happy spending time here:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/

another area full of informative folks, but a bit more tolerant of the religious (PvM is in fact, a Christian).

good luck.

no soapbox.

Just found the website from the Movie Expelled's website.

And I do apologize for pontificating my beliefs, on this website. Didn't mean to offend you.

What I do know, is what's happened in my life since deciding to follow Christ. His teachings have shaped my life, and allowed me to experience Love, Joy and Peace, amongst other things, on a level in which I could never of fathomed.

And no one here will stand in your way in continuing on that path, for as long as you wish.

However, I would suggest that you keep in mind that "Love, Joy and Peace" are emotions which are part of the general human condition. And while your own experiences of those emotions may be powerful and vivid to you, they are just as powerful and vivid to all humans, past and present, regardless of whether they believed in Jesus or Yahweh or Allah or Zeus or Thor or Vishnu or no gods at all.

Ok ...... I see one slight but possibly relevant mistake with the comparison made by PZ Myers concerning how Charles Darwin was much more of a gentleman than Christians of his day. I will just state here, that it just might be possible that actual recorded history may be of no importance to a scientist when they choose of their own free will to make a false comparison intended to mislead others into thinking that christians are, were, and always will be "inferior" to their own intellect.

First of all, you need a refresher course on the Atlantic Slave Trade. One person you should research fully is John Henry Newton. You might even ask yourself this question "Why did the State of Georgia abolish slavery for the first two decades of its existence?"

I can sort of see Ben Stein's point ..... PZ Myers is attacking people of faith in an attempt to ridicule them, while at the same time, spouting off nonsense about how Charles Darwin was somehow less of a racist than christians of his day. Your talking garbage. A racist is a racist. More christians have put forth an effort to stop racism than any scientist. That is a fact you might have a bit of trouble swallowing my dear good sir.

And I do apologize for pontificating my beliefs, on this website. Didn't mean to offend you.

not offensive, just tiresome. which i would add you yourself shouldn't take necessary offense at.

like i said, a cursory glance suggests you might like spending time at the 'thumb more.

you'll get the same kinds of insights into evolutionary theory (for the most part), and there won't be quite as negative a reaction towards your religious beliefs, if that's important to you.

will just state here, that it just might be possible that actual recorded history may be of no importance to a scientist when they choose of their own free will to make a false comparison intended to mislead others into thinking that christians are, were, and always will be "inferior" to their own intellect.

have you ever heard the term:

strawman?

here, read up and then reconsider what you just wrote:

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

A racist is a racist.

Abe Lincoln was a racist.

What a miserable excuse for a human he must have been.

yeah I'll check it out man. thanks.

one final question, before my stomach explodes for lack of no dinner...

if we evolved from chromizones, molecules. etc...

where did they come from?

didn't this whole thing have to start from somewhere?

and I will understand if you dont' want to answer my question.

Again thanks for your time. Your responses wasn't what I was expecting.

"More christians have put forth an effort to stop racism than any scientist."

The converse is also true: more Christians put in an effort to preserve slavery than any scientist. This probably due to the vastly larger numbers of Christians in comparison scientists.

"didn't this whole thing have to start from somewhere?"

Yes, but it has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. Evolutionary theory, unlike Christianity, isn't intended to be a comprehensive cosmology or cosmogeny. It is simply an explanatory framework for how populations of biological organisms change over time. Where elementary particles, chemical elements, etc. initiated is irrelevant to the basic picture of evolution.

didn't this whole thing have to start from somewhere?

you're into the field of abiogenesis now:

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

just to be clear how this differs from (and is also similar to) the theory of how things evolved afterwards.

typically, evolutionary biologists are more concerned about how things change within populations, not how the first reproducing organism arose to begin with.

That said, as scientists we certainly don't presume other than natural causes, and there are enough theories out there being evaluated as we speak; see the wiki article i linked to for several examples.

but where did the "water vapor" come from?

and what about the earth itself?

Evolunists, (only a question, not an attack) only believe in studying the evolving of life on earth? Correct?

Evolunists, (only a question, not an attack) only believe in studying the evolving of life on earth? Correct?

to some extent, we have to understand chemistry, physics, geology, and even a little astronomy in order to understand what the constraints and properties inherent in the systems are.

so, yes, we are primarily interested in studying life, but in order to do so, we have to know quite a bit about other fields as well.

I took enough chemistry to minor in it as an undergrad, for example.

oh, and I don't know any evolutionary biologists that refer to themselves as "evolutionists" either.

it's a theory, not a worldview, in spite of what you might have been told.

Theory. Gotcha.

So in your studies, cause they seem a lot more wide then mine, how did earth beging? And the "molecules" (or however they are referred to) begin?

Cause the question I always come to when thinking about "evolution" is, it had to all begin somewhere?

True, yes?

The converse is also true: more Christians put in an effort to preserve slavery than any scientist.

Also, in the USA (at least so far as I know), it is only Christians who wish to return to slavery, with themselves as the slaveowners, of course.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_Slavery#Christian_advocac…

"More christians have put forth an effort to stop racism than any scientist."

The converse is also true: more Christians put in an effort to preserve slavery than any scientist. This probably due to the vastly larger numbers of Christians in comparison scientists.

Your statements are incorrect. This is yet another urban legend such as "christians were responsible for the flat earth theory" (even though the bible said it was round). So called scientists believed the earth was flat.

I would say that more scientists have encouraged euthanasia than any christian. I would also say that "big science" is also responsible for the Holocaust. "Now hold on ".... you might say ..... "the racial ideologies of the third reich were based on a misinterpretation of the Darwin theory yadda yadda yadda .........."

I have heard them all my friend. I can now pose this question "If it was a misinterpretation, where did the misinterpretation take place?, Was Charles Darwin ONLY talking about animals? Don't you think he was also INCLUDING human beings in his Origin of the Species?"

Of course he was. And of course it is wrong to euthanize those whom are deemed "inferior" by the pre-dominant "species" or "race".

I do not see christians advocating mercy killings, or aborting a live baby 30 days after it has been born (Peter Singer and others). I do not see christians debating on when a human being is actually a person.

I see "big science" as Ben Stein calls it, doing just that.

I believe science is a great tool used to explain how our environment "works". It should never be used to indoctrinate one professor's ideology of how things work. When evidence contradicts scientific research, it should not be stifled or dismissed. It should be discussed.

owlmirror,

I think your wikipedia reference, is another gross example of how people have taken the "bible" and twisted their own agendas into it.

It's pathetic at best.

But couldn't one say, that we are slaves to something? There is something that controls us all? Our motives, our actions, our beliefs?

So in your studies, cause they seem a lot more wide then mine, how did earth beging? And the "molecules" (or however they are referred to) begin?

earth? as an accretion of dust particles, minerals, and gases, same as any other body within the solar system (including the sun).

again, a basic google search on "origin of earth" will likely turn up the latest work.

did you happen to catch the fairly recent series: The Universe, that was shown on the history channel?

if not, you might like to take a gander at that for a fun and basic review of what we currently know and have hypothesized.

http://www.history.com/minisite.do?content_type=mini_home&mini_id=54036

there are also a lot of excellent books on the subject out there, and of course you might want to try websites of those whose field is more directly relevant:

http://research.amnh.org/~tyson/

by "molecules" I assume you mean self-replicating molecules?

if so, I again suggest you check out the references in the wiki on abiogenesis.

There is something that controls us all? Our motives, our actions, our beliefs?

I take it you have abandoned the idea of free will?

you can change your mind about rather important issues at a moment's notice, can you not?

you could stop believing in a deity right now, and I promise no retaliation, nor change in the way the world around you functions in the most basic sense.

that said, what evidence do you have that supports the idea you have no free will?

"Now hold on ".... you might say ..... "the racial ideologies of the third reich were based on a misinterpretation of the Darwin theory

No. I would say: The Third Reich didn't misinterpret "the Darwin theory", as you phrase it, because they didn't use it. At all.

Hitler preferred more classical models of racial superiority:

Hitler praised Arminius ("Hermann"), who annihilated ancient Roman legions, as "the first architect of our liberty," and the aggressive medieval monarch, Charlemagne, as "one of the greatest men in world history." In 1924, Hitler urged that "the new Reich must again set itself on the march along the road of the Teutonic knights of old, to obtain by the German sword sod for the German plow."
A second model was Roman history itself, which Hitler considered "the best mentor, not only for today, but probably for all time." He considered Rome's genocide of Carthage in 146 BCE "a slow execution of a people through its own deserts." Classical Sparta was a third Nazi model. Hitler recommended in 1928 that a state should "limit the number allowed to live," and added: "The Spartans were once capable of such a wise measure... The subjugation of 350,000 Helots by 6,000 Spartans was only possible because of the racial superiority of the Spartans." They had created "the first racialist state." Invading the USSR in 1941, Hitler saw its citizens as Helots to his Spartans: "They came as conquerors, and they took everything." A Nazi officer specified that "the Germans would have to assume the position of the Spartiates, while ... the Russians were the Helots."
"I've just learnt," Hitler further remarked, "that the feeding of the Roman armies was almost entirely based on cereals." Now, he added, Ukraine and Russia "will one day be the granaries of Europe," but they merited that responsibility only with German agricultural settlement. "The Slavs are a mass of born slaves,"

. "Now hold on ".... you might say ..... "the racial ideologies of the third reich were based on a misinterpretation of the Darwin theory yadda yadda yadda .........."

actually, they were based on the writings of Martin Luther, and had nothing whatsoever to do with Darwin, or any of his writings.

did you ever actually READ Mein Kampf?

suggest you do so before you say "I've heard them all".

when (if) you do, you will find no references to Darwin, or to the theory of evolution.

go figure.

so tired of you Kennedy (James) wannabes trying to pretend you know something about history.

morons, the lot of ya.

No I think we have a free will.

We are all free to do whatever we want.

Yes we have the choice to change at any given notice.

But it seems as we "un" progress as a civilization, we are "generally" becoming more dependent on things. A dependence that soon, if not stopped, becomes a type of slave owner if you will.

I have no evidence that supports the Idea of no free will. But I do have evidence at what our "world" is turning into.

Ever been to wal-mart. LOL.

The converse is also true: more Christians put in an effort to preserve slavery than any scientist. This probably due to the vastly larger numbers of Christians in comparison scientists.

Your statements are incorrect.

Really? Incorrect? So... you're saying that it was scientists, not Christians, who fought wars to preserve slavery? You're saying there are many more scientists than there are Christians?

How interesting!

Oh. And "big science" caused the Holocaust. LMAO. Never heard that one before.

(Wow. Has this guy swallowed the Kool-Aid or what?)

I have heard them all my friend

Heh. I doubt that. Yet you suppose that this rancid tripe you're serving up here on on your splintered and rotting platter is in ANY sense new?

What is it about the Right-Wing mind that sees conspiracies everywhere? I mean the John Birchers and McCarthy complaining about a government full of commies--even up to President Eisenhower himself--who have moved more recently into Jewish conspiracy theories. There are the freaks (like Gerry) pushing ZOG as foretold in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, leading to UN black helicopters taking over everything. There's always the Illuminati and Freemasons running things behind the scenes. And now we've got Big Science.

Steven, take your pills. It is all in your head.

When evidence contradicts scientific research, it should not be stifled or dismissed. It should be discussed.

we do.

what you are confused about is thinking that creationism provides any evidence that needs evaluation or discussion.

It simply doesn't.

thousands of years to show evidence of a deity's hand in natural affairs have resulted in...

zip.

nada.

ZERO

you want to take it to the latest iteration? so called "Intelligent Design"?

guess what?

we asked the supporters of ID to actually provide research that documents how they have tested their concepts and predictions.

what did we get, after 15 years?

nada.

zip

zilch

zero

null

...

to be able to discuss science, there has to be science to begin with.

Ever been to wal-mart. LOL.

touche'

but the point is, we ourselves determine how much our freedoms and choices are limited. nobody and no-thing is out there doing it for us.

to be able to discuss science, there has to be science to begin with.

...expelled nothing, ID never even made it to school to begin with!

they were shouting with a megaphone from the parking lot.

As I recall from my science studies at a what shall be nameless University in Washington, D.C., I was taught as fact, not theory, that the earth is millions or billions of years old.

I knew better than to question my professor, for to do so would have earned me an F. But I never did get any of my questions answered, so I will ask now and hold my peace.

If it is true that the earth gains mass annually, and it is millions, or billions (whichever sounds more grandiose) old, then why aren't we touching the sun by now?

If it is true that it takes thousands, perhaps millions, of years for sedimentary layers to form, why did I see several sedimentary layers form in one afternoon when Mt. Saint Helen's erupted?

When using the ever so accurate scientific method of carbon dating, why do live snail shells indicate they died 25,000 years ago?

After years of evolutionary scientists fighting for their share in fame and glory, and the theory that man descended from a common apelike creature, why is it never discussed that the scientific evidence for this theory was a result of a mistaken bone fragment from an extinct pig? Why does the homicide reconstructionist artist rendering of the Cro-Magnon man resemble my neighbor Fred?

Thanks.

So a person who believes in the evolution theory and believer in the faith of Jesus Christ agree on something.

HOO_RAY!

yeah We all got free will I most agree with that. But, unfortunately what I don't think a lot of us comprehend, or just choose to neglect thought to whatsoever, is that yeah we got free will to make choices of our own, but every choice has a reaction. That is science isn't it? Newton's law or something?

"Your statements are incorrect. This is yet another urban legend such as "christians were responsible for the flat earth theory" (even though the bible said it was round). So called scientists believed the earth was flat."

So the confederacy most consisted of scientists and non-Christians. Got it.

I really can't wait to see how long this guy continues to urinate on his own feet to get around this.

The more effective you are at dismissing detractors as idiots and demonstrating that the people questioning you are intellectual inferiors, the more you feel it validates your position. That is precisely the attitude that the filmmakers wanted to expose, and was the only point I was trying to make.

Actually, what validates my acceptance of conventional evolutionary biology is the evidence. Dismissing its detractors comes when I see that they have no evidence. There are several varieties of this sort: there's the bumptious, pompous fool like Keith Eaton; the warm-and-fuzzy scold like you; the loudly ignorant like Ben Stein; and the trust-us-it's-a-scientific-theory bullshit artists like Michael Behe and Jonathan Wells. What they all have in common is their uncomprehending approach to discussing evolution and a complete and utter lack of sound evidence, or even the means to build an evidentiary case.

I personally do not debate creationists about creationism anymore. I got over that while I was still an undergraduate. Then it was interesting, when I was just learning about the very issues which they were misrepresenting, so that my level of knowledge perfectly coincided with the sort of arguments that hadn't changed in forty years, since the publication of The Genesis Flood. Then as I learned more as an undergraduate, then graduate student, my interest in debating creationists waned. I could see that they weren't even in the same ballpark as what was new and interesting in biology.

If creationists would be less ignorant, less cocksure, and less bumptious, and less dishonest, then perhaps the reception would be less hostile. Until that time, however, there is no point to bending over backwards to be civil to people who will use that very civility as a wedge to push their half-baked ideas into the public school and university systems, and then when one cries "Foul!" complain that they're being persecuted.

Theory. Gotcha.

Please keep in mind that a scientific theory is an explanation based on the evidence. It will make everyone here a whole lot happier.

how did earth begin

Sonny, the current cosmological model is that space itself exploded into the universe. Matter, which was originally very concentrated and hot, expanded and cooled, forming the first stars and galaxies. The first stars were made of hydrogen, which fuses into helium, releasing energy. When the hydrogen has all fused, the helium fuses into carbon (and oxygen, and neon). The fusion of elements continues in various ways until iron is reached. When iron is reached, fusion cannot continue (because it requires energy rather than producing it), and the star collapses and undergoes a supernova, which will then form many many other elements and scatter them everywhere. The remnants of the star will be incorporated into other, younger stellar system, one of which was our own solar system.

But it looks like the question that you are trying to slowly lead up to is "Why is there something rather than nothing?" or "where did everything come from?"

At this point in time, there is no answer to that question, other than guesses.

However. I just want to point out that the process of science — examining the available evidence, often with tools made possible by earlier scientific discoveries, is far more likely to reach an answer than any other way of thinking. And even the guesses, when based on current scientific knowledge, are better than those from ones who are not so educated.

So the confederacy most consisted of scientists and non-Christians. Got it.

I really can't wait to see how long this guy continues to urinate on his own feet to get around this.

Wait no longer ..... Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was NOT a confederate soldier. I wonder what exactly they are teaching in the science classrooms these days.

The State of Georgia was an abolitionist state the first 20 years of its existence because christians held the majority of political power during that time.

Robert E. Lee, the big 'ol redneck boy of the south, was an abolitionist and a christian. One of his campaign promises (he was vying for presidency of the confederacy) was to abolish slavery in the south.

I am starting to understand just how gullible some of you all are. If someone were to .... oh, I don't know .... say something like ....... your ancestors were monkeys, well by golly, you'd probably believe that too.

Monkey see, monkey do.

"When using the ever so accurate scientific method of carbon dating, why do live snail shells indicate they died 25,000 years ago?"

It's called the reservoir effect. In short, radiocarbon measurements can be thrown off if the object being dated has been contaminated by carbon reservoirs, and the effect varies by geographic region. Scienctists are well aware of the problem.

Owlmirror....

But it looks like the question that you are trying to slowly lead up to is "Why is there something rather than nothing?" or "where did everything come from?"

At this point in time, there is no answer to that question, other than guesses.

That is what you stated...

So my obvious question is this...

And it's just a question...

The theory of evolution, has to depend upon a guess?

"Wait no longer ..... Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was NOT a confederate soldier."

Which is completely irrelevant. You claimed that my statement that "more Christians acted to preserve slavery than any scientist" was an "urbran legend". The fact that the confederacy was overwhelmingly Christian undermines your claim. It's pretty simple logic.

"I am starting to understand just how gullible some of you all are. If someone were to .... oh, I don't know .... say something like ....... your ancestors were monkeys, well by golly, you'd probably believe that too."

This is why I'm for mandatory courses on logic, rhetoric and exposition at the high school level. It really does help a lot to understand the basics, at least.

Why does the homicide reconstructionist artist rendering of the Cro-Magnon man resemble my neighbor Fred?

Because they are the same species.

It is true that Georgia was markedly different from the rest of the States of the Union, where the Scientists held the majority of the political power during that time. And while it is true that The Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King was not a Confederate Soldier, had he been a Scientist instead of a Christian then he, and not that gangly ape Lincoln, would have been elected President, and Slavery surely would have ended Sooner (and with less of that Cain and Abel stuff).

That would have explicitly violated the Constitution of the CSA.

Additionally, wouldn't it be odd for an abolitionist to own slaves? Lee did.

In other words, you're a liar.

The theory of evolution, has to depend upon a guess?

only if you think the formation of the earth is relevant to testing for example whether selection is a relevant mechanism in speciation. Because actually, we don't have to guess on that point, it's been tested literally tens of thousands of times, and while not the only mechanism driving the direction of traits withing populations of organisms, it's pretty damn clear it is one of them. Not much of a guess at this point whether Darwin was right about that one.

don't overreach, would be my only advice to you at this point; don't conflate abiogenesis with evolutionary theory, even if they are related. You'll just get yourself more confused.

start with the basics, first, and then try to work out some kind of larger synthesis if you wish.

"The theory of evolution, has to depend upon a guess?"

Even assuming your premise, evolution doesn't "depend on a guess" anymore than our theories of quantum electrodynamics, fluid dynamics, computational complexity, etc. "Not knowing everything" does not equate to "knowing nothing."

More christians have put forth an effort to stop racism than any scientist. That is a fact you might have a bit of trouble swallowing my dear good sir.

It's a 'fact' I have a great deal of trouble swallowing, because it dismisses the White Identity Church of Jesus Christ-Christian, the Ku Klux Klan, and the entire apparatus supporting slavery in the South. This is why Hubert Henry Harrison, a prominent pamphleteer during the Harlem Renaissance, said that he refused to bow down before a lily white god and worship a Jim Crow Jesus. Asa Philip Randolph, also an atheist, and prominent labor organizer, held much the same opinion. Of course their opinions don't seem to matter, what matters is how much mileage they can get for themselves out of remembering that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Christian, riding his dead body in order to forget how many white churches and white Christian organizations (like the Klan) stood squarely in his way.

Furthermore, this alleged 'fact' ignores the long history of anti-racist writings from scientists. Who was it, after all, that critiqued the assumptions made in The Bell Curve? It ignores figures like Ashley Montagu, whose Man's Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race demolished the arguments of the new breed of "scientific" racists decades before they became popular. Ditto for Theodosius Dobzhansky's Genetic Diversity and Human Equality, and it's worth noting that Dobzhansky was one of the main architects of the Modern Synthesis. Richard Lewontin showed that humans vary clinally, with the genetic diversity greater within a geographic area than between geographic areas, severely undermining the essentialist basis for notions of "race". In fact, because of the efforts of researchers like these, I can't think of a single working scientist who believes that there are essentialist characteristics defining a "race" and that these characteristics are correlated with superiority or inferiority to other groups. There are, however, plenty of Christians who still believe that--the KKK's slogan is "Bringing a Message of Hope and Deliverance to White Christian America!".

So, with that in mind, perhaps you would provide us with a complete and unbiased examination of the subject of racism so that we can see your evidence that Christians have done more to stop racism for ourselves?

The theory of evolution, has to depend upon a guess?

I KNEW this was what you were trying to do. But, no, it doesn't hold up. The theory of evolution is backed up by chemistry, physics, geology and anthropology, among other fields. The evidence has been consistently collected and analyzed. It's not "just a guess." There's an overwhelming amount of work and evidence behind it.

by the way, Steven, before you confuse Martin Luther with MLK (or am I too late already)...

try this on for size:

http://www.tentmaker.org/books/MartinLuther-HitlersSpiritualAncestor.ht…

thanks for making my thoughts clearer.

Blessings.

The theory of evolution, has to depend upon a guess?

No. The theory of evolution depends on the evidence. You're made of the evidence. So am I. So is every living thing on the planet.

The current model of planetary formation is a theory that's also based on the evidence, from our own planet, and what we see of other planets in our solar system, and from other stellar systems.

The only thing that's a "guess" is what came before the Big Bang.

I was taught as fact, not theory, that the earth is millions or billions of years old.

you were taught as fact that the earth is millions or billions of years old?

which?

millions or billions?

can't be both.

fucking liar.

Ok, first of all, the American Civil War was not a war about slavery. It was a war about state rights. Secondly, the vast majority of southerners were much too poor to have had the financial means to own slaves.

The whole issue of slavery came about as a result of the Civil War. It was politics.

Robert E. Lee, when asked to lead the Union against his home state of Virginia, refused based on a premise that he could not attack his family,his neighbors, his home. This was the main issue, not slavery. As I stated earlier, Robert E. Lee was an abolitionist. He became an abolitionist AFTER his conversion to christianity. Your implications that the southerners were a bunch of hillbilly bible thumping hate mongering racists is a little off. Their motivation was NOT to preserve slavery, it was to preserve their homes and protect their families from an invading army.

If General Jackson had not been killed, we would be living in two seperate countries. The Southern States would have abolished slavery regardless. Abolishing slavery was not only Robert E. Lee's campaign promise, it was Jackson's promise as well.

Slavery was a rich plantation owner's issue, not the confederate soldier's issue. We still have the same problem today, only it has taken the form of illegal immigration. Maybe we should just invade California?

Ok, first of all, the American Civil War was not a war about slavery. It was a war about state rights.

...and slavery.

and economics.

and a couple of other things.

so?

Secondly, the vast majority of southerners were much too poor to have had the financial means to own slaves.

so?

Slavery was a rich plantation owner's issue, not the confederate soldier's issue. We still have the same problem today, only it has taken the form of illegal immigration.

sure, all you have to do is show me how all the Africans were just ever so eager to jump on board ship and come here to work for massa, boss. Then you might be able to compare immigration with slavery, well, at least that's ONE thing you'd have to do in a laundry list of imaginary history you'd have to invent off the cuff.

LOL

now I KNOW you're a moron.

thanks for playing.

bye now.

do your kids a favor, don't vote. If you don't have kids, that's good, keep that up.

Richard Lewontin showed that humans vary clinally, with the genetic diversity greater within a geographic area than between geographic areas, severely undermining the essentialist basis for notions of "race".

Cavalli-Sforza is the clinal variation guy, not Lewontin. Clinal variation depends on the bits that vary between geographic areas, so it's not the same thing as showing that there's more variation within an area.

All you have to do now is show how illegal immigrants are not doing remedial (ahem, slave) labor and then maybe you would be able to get your head out of your ass and breathe some healthy oxygen.

"Ok, first of all, the American Civil War was not a war about slavery. It was a war about state rights. Secondly, the vast majority of southerners were much too poor to have had the financial means to own slaves."

Even setting aside the grotesque neoconfederate revisionism in this post, it isn't even relevant to what I said. The confederacy explicitly preserved the institution of slavery in its constitution. Instructively, it also explicitly acknowledged the influence of the "Almighty God" in its preamble, something our constitution does not.

Robert E. Lee, the big 'ol redneck boy of the south, was an abolitionist and a christian.

Here's Lee in an 1856 letter to his wife:

The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence.

Yes, that certainly sounds like an abolitionist to me. "Let's let slavery end whenever it is that god sends us a revelation that we need to, and in the meantime I'll continue running my plantation with its 196 slaves."

One of his campaign promises (he was vying for presidency of the confederacy) was to abolish slavery in the south.

And when was he vying for presidency of the Confederacy? Jefferson Davis was appointed president by a constitutional convention in Montgomery, AL in 1861. There was no public campaign, with its expansive campaign promises. And furthermore, as has already been noted, it would have violated the Confederacy's constitution.

Do you know even the slightest thing about the history you're pontificating about, or are you just making it up as you go along (as I highly suspect)?

remedial (ahem, slave) labor

all you have to do is show how remedial labor that one gets paid wages for is slavery. slaves were often used in capacities other than remedial labor too, so you'll need to figure out how to work that in there too.

no wait, all you have to do is show how you're not a complete idiot, first.

I rather doubt you will be able to do so, frankly.

I am chastened. I shouldn't post stuff like that without looking at my library. I just thought of Lewontin since he's done a great deal of work on genetic diversity and made the false connection.

I noticed how his full letter isn't posted, but hey, I am used to "your kind" so here it is:

I was much pleased the with President's message. His views of the systematic and progressive efforts of certain people at the North to interfere with and change the domestic institutions of the South are truthfully and faithfully expressed. The consequences of their plans and purposes are also clearly set forth. These people must be aware that their object is both unlawful and foreign to them and to their duty, and that this institution, for which they are irresponsible and non-accountable, can only be changed by them through the agency of a civil and servile war. There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy. This influence, though slow, is sure. The doctrines and miracles of our Savior have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist! While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day. Although the abolitionist must know this, must know that he has neither the right not the power of operating, except by moral means; that to benefit the slave he must not excite angry feelings in the master; that, although he may not approve the mode by which Providence accomplishes its purpose, the results will be the same; and that the reason he gives for interference in matters he has no concern with, holds good for every kind of interference with our neighbor, -still, I fear he will persevere in his evil course. . . . Is it not strange that the descendants of those Pilgrim Fathers who crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom have always proved the most intolerant of the spiritual liberty of others?

well ..... there you have it.

I won't even say that was at least a Grad student's best attempt.

More like History 101

#360: The rest of your statement was correct though. Lewontin was the one who popularized the idea that there's more variation within than between "races". And that does disprove essentialist concepts of race, although it's not enough to prove that non-essentialist "races" don't exist.

or are you just making it up as you go along (as I highly suspect)?

no need to suspect, actually.

he is.

whether he will admit it is another question entirely, and the only one of interest to myself at this point.

I'm going to wager that if we look at all of his posts, assuming he adds to them, we will find at least a dozen clear examples of inventiveness.

typical creobot: reality doesn't fit his preconceptions, so instead of changing the preconceptions, they try to change the very definitions of reality instead.

just like the Kansas creobots who tried to redefine science such that "astrology" would be considered science, just so they could cram their religious ideology into a classroom.

guess what Steven? it didn't work for them, either.

if you think about it, you should be happy it didn't. How would you like your kids to be learning about the "scientific predictions" of the Qu'ran in their next science class?

oh? you wouldn't like that much?

LOL

As I stated earlier, Robert E. Lee was an abolitionist. He became an abolitionist AFTER his conversion to christianity.

Robert E. Lee was a Christian his entire life, and he was an abolitionist for precisely none of it.

Abolishing slavery was not only Robert E. Lee's campaign promise, it was Jackson's promise as well.

Again, and WHEN did this campaigning happen, considering that Davis was appointed to his post by the Confederate constitutional convention, and then "re-elected" by an electoral college appointed by the legislature for six years? Remember, they had a single six year term, and the office was created and dissolved by reunification before Davis' term was up. So when did this campaigning happen?

Oh, now it's a Civil War debate? Those never end well.

Be it further enacted
, That any slave or free person of color, who shall, by promises of freedom or liberty, or by any kind of incitement, entice or induce any slave to leave the service of his master, or shall attempt to induce or entice said slave, shall on conviction thereof, suffer the punishment of death, or such other punishment as the jury may recommend in their verdict, and in case of no such recommendation, such punishment as the Judge presiding, in his discretion, may inflict. — Acts of the General Assembly of the State of Georgia
Passed in Milledgeville at an Annual Session in November and December, 1863

Yeah, Georgia was real enlightened. Yah-huh.

well ..... there you have it.

have WHAT??

I noticed how his full letter isn't posted, but hey, I am used to "your kind" so here it is:

Of course the full letter wasn't posted, because I didn't have access to it. Having read it, I'd be grateful if you'd point out where it shows that he was an abolitionist. Here's a little hint for you: you can't, because it doesn't. In fact, it implies that we shouldn't take steps to end slavery because god has it all under control and it'll end it in its own good time.

Combined with the Neo-Confederate mythmaking you're engaging in, the phrase "your kind" tells me all I ever needed to know about you and your beliefs.

why is it that Southerners constantly try their hand at revisionist history?

oh yeah, that's right, they LOST.

sweet plastic jesus on my dashboard, you'd think they would have gotten over that by now.

Thought that I would chime in with some info for Sonny about where all of the matter in the Universe came from. Firstly, the universe has probably always existed - just not in its current form, obviously. Many of the (public) perceptions about the Big Bang are wrong, in my experience:

In the beginning, there was not yet any matter. However, there was a lot of energy in the form of light, which comes in discrete packets called photons. When photons have enough energy, they can spontaneously decay into a particle and an antiparticle. (An antiparticle is the exact opposite of the corresponding particle -- for example, a proton has charge +e, so an antiproton has charge -e.) This is easily observed today, as gamma rays have enough energy to create measurable electron-antielectron pairs (the antielectron is usually called a positron). It turns out that the photon is just one of a class of particles, called the bosons, that decay in this manner. Many of the bosons around just after the big bang were so energetic that they could decay into much more massive particles such as protons (remember, E=mc^2, so to make a particle with a large mass m, you need a boson with a high energy E). The mass in the universe came from such decays.

The next question to ask is: where did all the antimatter go? For each particle created in this fashion, there is exactly one antiparticle. In this case, there should have been exactly as much antimatter as there is matter. If that were true, when the universe had cooled somewhat each particle would have found an antiparticle and combined to form a boson (this process is called annihilation of the particles). Actually, this was the fate of most of these pairs -- something like 10 billion particles annihilated for every one that survived. The survival of even such a small fraction was enough to form all of the matter in our universe. At some point during this process, something else must have happened to cause the survival of more particles than antiparticles (we call this the particle-antiparticle asymmetry).

There are many theories that try to explain this asymmetry. I will give a very brief description of one of them, called electroweak baryogenesis. (Understanding it requires a lot more background information than I have space for.) Protons and neutrons are particles called baryons, and baryogenesis means the creation of baryons. The current understanding of particle physics, called the standard model, dictates that nowadays the number of baryons is nearly constant, with only a small variation due to quantum mechanical tunneling. In the early universe, however, the temperature was much higher, so that this tunneling was commonplace and a large number of baryons could have been created. Electroweak refers to the time period in question, when the electromagnetic and weak forces were decoupling from a single force into 2 separate forces (between 10^-12 and 10^-6 seconds after the big bang--the asymmetry probably would have formed towards the end). An additional source of baryons is due to the fact that leptons (another type of particle, including electrons) can be converted into baryons at this epoch.

Yeah, Georgia was real enlightened. Yah-huh.

you didn't happen to notice the date that was written did you?

Probably not.

The first twenty years of its existence predates 1863.

The State of Georgia was an abolitionist state the first 20 years of its existence because christians held the majority of political power during that time.

Aside from the fact that this is not true, and that Georgia delegates were partly responsible for the insertion of the clauses in the U.S. Constitution protecting the slave trade for the first twenty years of the U.S.'s existence, exactly whom do you imagine seized power in Georgia twenty years after the founding of the U.S.? Jews? Muslims? Buddhists? Hindus? Atheists? And where's your evidence for any of it?

You weren't possibly talking about the ban on the importation of new slaves, were you?

In 1790, just before the explosion in cotton production, some 29,264 slaves resided in the state. In 1793 the Georgia Assembly passed a law prohibiting the importation of slaves. The law did not go into effect until 1798, when the state constitution also went into effect, but the measure was widely ignored by planters, who urgently sought to increase their enslaved workforce. By 1800 the slave population in Georgia had more than doubled, to 59,699; by 1810 the number of slaves had grown to 105,218.

Wow! That's some abolitionist state! For the record, the number of slaves in a free state should be zero.

I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence.

oh yes, abolitionism through advocation of slavery as "good for them".

uh, wait...

dude, you ARE a fucking moron.

Tell us, Stevo...

where did the concept of "Manifest Destiny" come from?

Xians or secularists?

hmm?

oh yes, abolitionism through advocation of slavery as "good for them".

uh, wait...

dude, you ARE a fucking moron.

You still have your head up your ass. Take an illegal immigrant, I don't care which one, and ask him/her "Is your life better here than in Mexico (gasp, did I say that out loud?)?"

An African slave's life was far better than a life they would have had in Africa (for the majority). I am not saying slavery was a good thing, just as I am not saying that doing forced remedial labor for a greedy construction company is a good thing either.

Its kind of hard having to take you by your hand every step of the way so that you can actually understand what Robert E. Lee was actually saying. Perhaps the very last sentence should have clued you in?

I can see its already pointless.

Aside from the fact that this is not true, and that Georgia delegates were partly responsible for the insertion of the clauses in the U.S. Constitution protecting the slave trade for the first twenty years of the U.S.'s existence, exactly whom do you imagine seized power in Georgia twenty years after the founding of the U.S.? Jews? Muslims? Buddhists? Hindus?

Scientists, of course. Everyone knows that the political opposite of all Christians everywhere and in all times has been the Scientist. A scurrilous breed!

OH HAI, I REVISEDED UR HISTRY

Tell us, Stevo...

where did the concept of "Manifest Destiny" come from?

Xians or secularists?

hmm?

Why of course I will answer your question. But you have to answer mine first.

Were the T-4 Euthanasia laboratories the product of biblical teaching or the product of Darwinist teaching?

I already know all the tricks ;) Just because someone was raised a Catholic, Buhhdist, Taoist or whatever does not mean they actually believe it. It just means a well meaning parent tried to influence them at some point in their lives.

Obviously, Steven didn't care to learn about Californian history, otherwise, he would realize that upon joining the Union, California legislature forbade the institution of slavery, if only because the goldminers at the time were afraid that the Southern slaveowners were going to open up their own goldmines in California, and use their slaves as free labor, and mine the resident miners out of business.

Oh, and Steven, do realize the the main difference between slaves and illegal migrant workers is that the illegal migrant workers are not/were not descendants of people who were kidnapped from their homes to be sold and shipped overseas to be worked to near death in their owners' farms for no pay at all.

You don't seem to realize that, in all of the various permutations of the various institutions of slavery that have cropped up throughout the world, slaveowners were under no obligation to pay their slaves anything. Many civilizations did mandate that slaveowners were obligated to care for their slaves and not mistreat them, but, American slavery... not so much.

The main reason why illegal immigrants tend to come into places like California to work is because they are desperate for money, and that they are willing to risk their lives to come into the US illegally so that they can enough money to either send back to their families in their home countries, or eek out a better living in the US, given as how living standards in the US are among the best in the Western Hemisphere (aside from Canada).

Take an illegal immigrant, I don't care which one, and ask him/her "Is your life better here than in Mexico (gasp, did I say that out loud?)?"

they fucking CHOSE to come here for better wages, moron, which is exactly why they ARE NOT SLAVES.

jesus, they sure make em dumb down in your neck of the woods, don't they?

An African slave's life was far better than a life they would have had in Africa (for the majority)

hmm, funny thing, but if you actually read the accounts of those slaves that learned to write at the time (few though there were) none of them thought they had a better life here than back home with their families in Africa. They didn't come here voluntarily, remember? Did you somehow think they just jumped on board ships bound for america because of some sales pitch??

holy crap, you have got to be the dumbest dumbfuck to pop his head in here in the last couple of months.

It's not even funny.

I'd say you need help, but you obviously have a completely incurable case of stupid. Hope you aren't breeding?

please tell me you don't have kids?

You still have your head up your ass. Take an illegal immigrant, I don't care which one, and ask him/her "Is your life better here than in Mexico (gasp, did I say that out loud?)?"

And you'll get an answer of "No" at about a two-to-one ratio, based on my experience of working on immigration issues.

An African slave's life was far better than a life they would have had in Africa (for the majority).

Please demonstrate that there's something other than disgusting, rancid, and loathsome racism underpinning this assertion.

Its kind of hard having to take you by your hand every step of the way so that you can actually understand what Robert E. Lee was actually saying. Perhaps the very last sentence should have clued you in?

Read for comprehension much?

Although the abolitionist must know this, must know that he has neither the right not the power of operating, except by moral means; that to benefit the slave he must not excite angry feelings in the master; that, although he may not approve the mode by which Providence accomplishes its purpose, the results will be the same; and that the reason he gives for interference in matters he has no concern with, holds good for every kind of interference with our neighbor, -still, I fear he will persevere in his evil course. . . . Is it not strange that the descendants of those Pilgrim Fathers who crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom have always proved the most intolerant of the spiritual liberty of others?

Dude, Robert E. FUCKING Lee is saying that abolitionists are on "an evil course"; that they are intolerant of "the spiritual liberty of others", where "others" means "slaveowners".

this guy is just too stupid to argue with any more. It isn't even fun.

I leave it to the rest of you to have fun chewing him up.

Aside from the fact that this is not true, and that Georgia delegates were partly responsible for the insertion of the clauses in the U.S. Constitution protecting the slave trade for the first twenty years of the U.S.'s existence, exactly whom do you imagine seized power in Georgia twenty years after the founding of the U.S.? Jews? Muslims? Buddhists? Hindus?

Scientists, of course. Everyone knows that the political opposite of all Christians everywhere and in all times has been the Scientist. A scurrilous breed!

OH HAI, I REVISEDED UR HISTRY

Not sure where you are getting your history lessons.

Ever hear of James Oglethorpe? .....probably not.

Slavery existed in Georgia prior to any european settlement. The Native Americans had their own slave trade. The Atlantic Slave Trade was brought about by the introduction of the african slave trade by the african tribes themselves.

Ka-ching, the Portuguese and Dutch were the first to cash in.

But ... wait a minute, they weren't christians. Hmmmmmm.

You still have your head up your ass. Take an illegal immigrant, I don't care which one, and ask him/her "Is your life better here than in Mexico (gasp, did I say that out loud?)?"

Oh, and I hit "Post" before I could respond to this lovely aspect of the quoted material:

Apparently, we're not to care which illegal immigrant we question, but we can be certain that if they're an illegal immigrant, they're from Mexico. What was I just saying about racism?

It's as if there are no countries in the world other than Mexico. As if people do not try to immigrate illegally to the U.S. from Haiti, Vietnam, and so on, or even other countries in Latin America (who am I kidding? ARE there even other countries in Latin America?).

Ka-ching, the Portuguese and Dutch were the first to cash in.

But ... wait a minute, they weren't christians. Hmmmmmm.

The Portugese and Dutch weren't Christians?

Then what, pray tell, were they?

I can see its already pointless.

a perfect projection on Steven's part.

as such, I can hardly disagree.

The Portugese and Dutch weren't Christians?Then what, pray tell, were they?

Scientists? Catholics and Protestants, duh.

Furthermore, the T-4 Euthanasia programs were products of Adolf Hitler's madness, and neither Christianity nor "Darwinism."

However, much of Hitler's Holocaust plans did follow Martin Luther's recommendations in "Of the Jews and Their Lies."

Dang ... I guess I really do have to spell this one out.

Robert E. Lee -

There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil.

he also said:

The doctrines and miracles of our Savior have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist! While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers

wait ..... did he say he was going to pray for the abolition od slavery?

Dang - thats really got to hurt ;)

Then what, pray tell, were they?

Catholics?

here, Stevo:

http://churchslavery.blogspot.com/

http://www.antislavery.org/breakingthesilence/slave_routes/slave_routes…

educate yourself.

bye.

"Were the T-4 Euthanasia laboratories the product of biblical teaching or the product of Darwinist teaching?"

Kinda hard to pinpoint that. Given the enormity of historically detectable Christian influence on the Third Reich, however, "biblical teaching" should probably be up for consideration.

Steven, can you explain to me what regarding slavery as a moral and political evil has to do with abolitionism as a movement? It's like taking Sherman's "War is Hell" quote as firm evidence that the man who leveled Atlanta was a pacifist! It's moronic, it's bad history, and it's only going to give you a false perspective on what happened at any time period you care to mention.

Furthermore, the T-4 Euthanasia programs were products of Adolf Hitler's madness, and neither Christianity nor "Darwinism."

However, much of Hitler's Holocaust plans did follow Martin Luther's recommendations in "Of the Jews and Their Lies."

I am not talking about Martin Luther and his supposed "anti semitic" teachings (but I can delve in that one).

I am talking about the T-4 Euthanasia laboratories. You know, the killing centers for cogenitally disabled persons. Germans were included, so you can't play the race card on this one ... sorry.

As I recall, anyone who was deemed cogenitally defective was "mercifully" euthanized. Part of the euthansia program included forced sterilizations. The forced sterilizations were imposed on GERMAN (no race card) deaf, blind, deformed, or otherwise handicapped.

This was simply so they could not breed and create more handicapped people. Strange how this is so reminiscent of the process of natural selection Darwin was so fond of - only the nazis were trying to speed this process up.

Actually it's the precise opposite of the process of natural selection. It's rooted in an older, and anti-Darwinian conception called "orthogenesis", the belief that all organisms had an inbuilt tendency to senesence. The main example adduced in support of orthogenesis was the Irish Elk, with its antlers so large that it became unwieldy, causing the extinction of the species. It was feared that if the "feeble" were allowed to reproduce, they'd bring on the extinction of the entire species. That's not Darwinian by a long shot.

Steven, was the eugenics program in Sparta motivated by Darwinist teaching?

I happen to know a thing or two about blaming things on christians ... such as slavery, the holocaust, flat earth theory, etc.

Yes. Hitler was raised a Catholic. He told his secretary he was an atheist.

Yes, Hitler hated the Jews. He wanted the Germans to share his hatred. He forced the German church to teach that Jesus was an aryan and was killed by the Jews. He knew how to stir the pot.

So, just how many atheists were raised in a christian family? anyone? Does it make you a christian because you were raised in a christian home?

"This was simply so they could not breed and create more handicapped people. Strange how this is so reminiscent of the process of natural selection Darwin was so fond of - only the nazis were trying to speed this process up."

1. Culling members of a population considered to be "defective" didn't originate with either Darwin or Christianity. The Spartans practiced much the same thing. Sorry, find a new hobby horse.

2. If humans consciously attempt to artificially enhance themselves then it isn't natural selection, retard.

3. You should read up on the difference between descriptive and prescriptive statements, as well as the natural fallacy (google them).

Steven, was the eugenics program in Sparta motivated by Darwinist teaching?

Are you referring to the movie 300 ?

I really hope not.

About 3-4 months ago, archeologists rediscovered that the Spartans never actually threw deformed babies away. Its all a myth.

Strange how this is so reminiscent of the process of natural selection Darwin was so fond of - only the nazis were trying to speed this process up.

Actually, it was exactly like the artificial selection that humans have been practicing for going on about 10,000 years now.

And occasionally done on humans. Like the Spartans!

"He told his secretary he was an atheist."

Cite please.

About 3-4 months ago, archeologists rediscovered that the Spartans never actually threw deformed babies away. Its all a myth.

Did you read about that in the same place as Robert E. FUCKING Lee's presidential campaign ?

"About 3-4 months ago, archeologists rediscovered that the Spartans never actually threw deformed babies away. Its all a myth."

Can't find any references on this, got a citation or a link?

http://www.medindia.net/news/Spartans-Never-Discarded-Deformed-Babies-I…

Don't act so surprised :)

You were taught Robert E. Lee was a racist war mongerer by your indoctrinating teachers.

Just like your being taught to hate christians for not believing in evolution (when you SHOULD be taught to respect differences).

I happen to know a thing or two about blaming things on christians ... such as slavery, the holocaust, flat earth theory, etc.

And I know a thing or two about recognizing a bullshitter when I see one.

1) You have yet to reconcile your claim that Georgia was an abolitionist state with the evidence I posted that there were over 100,000 slaves in Georgia by 1810.

2) You have yet to explain exactly what religious affiliation the 15th and 16th century Dutch and Portugese had if it was not Christian

3) You have failed to provide historical evidence that Robert E. Lee was an abolitionist (handwringing about the moral and political evil of slavery doesn't cut it when he's talking about the evil inclination to try to stop slavery through human means in the next paragraph).

4) You have failed to provide historical evidence that Robert E. Lee only converted to Christianity later in his life.

5) You have failed to explain exactly who took over power from the Christians at the end of this entirely fictitious period of abolitionism in Georgia's [non-]history.

In fact, you have not backed a single claim of yours with any verifiable evidence so far. Can you do better, or are you going to hold yourself to the low standards you've set so far?

Did you read about that in the same place as Robert E. FUCKING Lee's presidential campaign ?

Oh yeah, I forgot about that!

Steven, care to clue us in on when Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson were both running for president of the Confederacy, and to whom they made campaign promises about abolishing slavery (considering that the President of the Confederacy was not elected by popular vote)?

Oh, and would you care to justify your claim that "An African slave's life was far better than a life they would have had in Africa (for the majority)."? I'd be very interested to learn that from the existing first person accounts of slavery, e.g. Olaudah Equiano's memoirs.

Steven,

Those findings only mean that the Spartans did not throw infants off that particular cliff. It doesn't wholly disprove the idea that the Spartans practiced eugenics.

I am not talking about Martin Luther and his supposed "anti semitic" teachings (but I can delve in that one).

What do you mean by "supposed"? What part of Martin Luther's "Of the Jews and Their Lies," where he calls for Jews to be deprived of all their liberties and rights to live do you think is suspect?

This was simply so they could not breed and create more handicapped people. Strange how this is so reminiscent of the process of natural selection Darwin was so fond of - only the nazis were trying to speed this process up.

"Natural Selection" is when members of a population interact with other species (predators, prey and competitors), and with the environment, and survive long enough to produce offspring.

"Artificial Selection" is when humans select which members of a population be culled and which members be allowed to reproduce on the basis of possession of traits which the aforementioned humans deem desirable.

"Eugenics" is where the rulers and or policy-makers of a population select which members of the population be culled and which members be allowed to reproduce on the basis of possession of traits which the aforementioned rulers and policy-makers deem desirable.

Besides being unnatural, as well as stripping humans of their dignity, some scientists have pointed out that Eugenics is a bad idea in that it risks creating genetic homogeneity in the population, and that populations that have become genetically uniform are unable to adapt to the environment or interact with other species very well, and thus, are at greater risk of dying out.

About 3-4 months ago, archeologists rediscovered that the Spartans never actually threw deformed babies away. Its all a myth.

Please cite your source, or we will assume that you are lying again.

Just like your being taught to hate christians for not believing in evolution (when you SHOULD be taught to respect differences).

I was never taught to hate Christians because they did not believe in evolution, especially since the statement is false, considering that there are many Christians who accept the fact of evolution with no qualms whatsoever.

Do realize that respect must be earned, and you done absolutely nothing to earn our respect. We are not obligated to respect people who demand our respect without even attempting to prove that they are worthy of receiving any respect in the first place.

Those findings only mean that the Spartans did not throw infants off that particular cliff. It doesn't wholly disprove the idea that the Spartans practiced eugenics.

No, it means they didn't find the bones of infants at the bottom of that particular cliff.

However, a quick Google finds the following, possibly pertinent, information, about birds in Greece:

European Honey Buzzard
Black-shouldered Kite
Black Kite
Red Kite
White-tailed Eagle
Lammergeier
Egyptian Vulture
Eurasian Griffon Vulture
Eurasian Black Vulture
Short-toed Eagle
Western Marsh Harrier
Hen Harrier
Pallid Harrier
Montagu's Harrier
Northern Goshawk
Eurasian Sparrowhawk
Levant Sparrowhawk
Common Buzzard
Long-legged Buzzard
Rough-legged Buzzard

(and so on)

http://rarities.ornithologiki.gr/en/eaop/bird_list.htm

In particular, one that specifically eats bone:

http://www.ornithologiki.gr/en/lib/engypbar.htm

I would not place long odds on scavengers not behaving like scavengers.

Did you read about that in the same place as Robert E. FUCKING Lee's presidential campaign ?

Oh yeah, I forgot about that!

I would have to pull out some of my college textbooks and cite references from Lee and Jackson's speeches. There is nothing on the internet that I can find (surprise, surprise).

However, you could always pay a visit to the Arlington memorial cemetary, visit Robert E. Lee's home and simply read his history there. This national monumnet reveals he was an abolitionist, freed his slaves after his conversion to christianity and vied for the CSA presidency.

In particular, one that specifically eats bone:

http://www.ornithologiki.gr/en/lib/engypbar.htm

I would not place long odds on scavengers not behaving like scavengers.

Ok - but they had since the 6th century BC to eat the bones of those 18-40 yr. old males in that particular cliff in that particular place of Greece - so why didn't they?

LOL

Ok - but they had since the 6th century BC to eat the bones of those 18-40 yr. old males in that particular cliff in that particular place of Greece - so why didn't they?

Maybe because the bones of infants contain more cartilage than the bones of adult males, and thus, are more likely to deteriorate than the bones of adult males, AND that the bones of infants are much smaller than the bones of adult males, thus, are easier to be devoured by scavenging animals, especially those that preferentially eat bones, such as bearded vultures.

You have been very misinformed. This entire blog was written in a way as to admonish believers in intelligent design based upon a supposed perception of a movie that hasn't even been released yet.

I demand your respect or I will not give you an inkling of mine.

"I demand your respect or I will not give you an inkling of mine."

I'm sure that Stanton is losing a lot of sleep over that last bit.

Ok - but they had since the 6th century BC to eat the bones of those 18-40 yr. old males in that particular cliff in that particular place of Greece - so why didn't they?

That is very well thought out ;)

I think the article I linked to was stating that the particular cliff in question was one rumored to be where babies were thrown.

How many mothers of a newborn baby would allow this practice? The most dangerous place on this earth is between a mother and her children.

You have been very misinformed. This entire blog was written in a way as to admonish believers in intelligent design based upon a supposed perception of a movie that hasn't even been released yet.

I demand your respect or I will not give you an inkling of mine.

Listen you moronic, shitheaded shit, I know for a fact that I will get no respect, or honest facts from you because you are a smarmy twit with crappy social skills who has no respect for anything to begin with. Hence, I've discarded any optimistic notion that you might be a reasonable person long ago.

Furthermore, Intelligent Design is not a science, and will never be a science, no matter how hard the cdesign proponentists try. The fact that Intelligent Design proponents have made absolutely no attempts to make any positive contribution to Science in the last 2 decades since the Discovery Institute started demonstrates that Intelligent Design never was about science. Anyone who says that Intelligent Design is about science should be pelted with rotting tomatoes, in fact. Expelled is a movie filled with lies, made by liars, and supported by liars. If you want to convince me otherwise, please show me.
Otherwise, go away.

Steven:

Lee's views on slavery

Since the end of the Civil War, it has often been suggested that Lee was in some sense opposed to slavery. In the period following the Civil War and Reconstruction, and after his death, Lee became a central figure in the Lost Cause interpretation of the war, and as succeeding generations came to look on slavery as a terrible immorality, the idea that Lee had always somehow opposed it helped maintain his stature as a symbol of Southern honor and national reconciliation.

Some of the evidence cited in favor of the claim that Lee opposed slavery, are the manumission of Custis's slaves, as discussed above, and his support, towards the end of the war, for enrolling slaves in the Confederate States Army, with manumission offered as an eventual reward for good service. Lee gave his public support to this idea two weeks before Appomattox, too late for it to do any good for the Confederacy.

In December of 1864, Lee was shown a letter by Louisiana Senator Edward Sparrow, written by General St. John R. Liddell, which noted that Lee would be hard-pressed in the interior of Virginia by spring, and the need to consider Patrick Cleburne's plan to emancipate the slaves and put all men in the army that were willing to join. Lee was said to have agreed on all points and desired to get Negro soldiers, saying that "he could make soldiers out of any human being that had arms and legs."[19]

Another source is Lee's 1856 letter to his wife,[20] which can be interpreted in multiple ways:
" ... In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence. "

Freeman's analysis[21] puts Lee's attitude toward slavery and abolition in historical context:
" This [letter] was the prevailing view among most religious people of Lee's class in the border states. They believed that slavery existed because God willed it and they thought it would end when God so ruled. The time and the means were not theirs to decide, conscious though they were of the ill-effects of Negro slavery on both races. Lee shared these convictions of his neighbors without having come in contact with the worst evils of African bondage. He spent no considerable time in any state south of Virginia from the day he left Fort Pulaski in 1831 until he went to Texas in 1856. All his reflective years had been passed in the North or in the border states. He had never been among the blacks on a cotton or rice plantation. At Arlington the servants had been notoriously indolent, their master's master. Lee, in short, was only acquainted with slavery at its best and he judged it accordingly. At the same time, he was under no illusion regarding the aims of the Abolitionist or the effect of their agitation.

straight from the wiki article on Lee; do note the highlighted portion. The original cite is:

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gazetteer/People/Robert_E_Lee/FRE…

which fails to mention, oddly any time that Lee ran for office before or during the Civil War...

better check those "textbooks" of yours again.

well, the title of this thread:

"Ahistorical garbage" is sure being fleshed out by Steven.

Owlmirror,

Yes, I probably should've qualified that more heavily. My judgement isn't one of a professional archeologist, but if the researcher is correct in his statement that the contemporaneous records of the activity are sparse and imprecise, combined with the lack of archeological evidence would suggest that that particular aspect of Spartan eugenics rests on some pretty shaky grounds. In any case, it does not invalidate the idea that the Spartans practiced infanticide and eugenics, as Steven claimed it did, so its a moot point really.

"I demand your respect or I will not give you an inkling of mine."

I'm sure that Stanton is losing a lot of sleep over that last bit.

I'm also going to lose sleep worrying about whether or not Steven is an idiot who physically incapable of shutting his sass hole.

I demand your respect or I will not give you an inkling of mine.

LOL

that's a gudun.

While the whole thing about the Spartan infants is actually interesting to me, it will require reading the actual research article rather than the news releases.

However! It is entirely beside the point.

Hitler thought that Spartans murdering infants was true. Hitler approved of it. Hitler copied it in his euthanasia programs. Hitler's euthanasia program had nothing to do with Darwin.

It's the Arlington National Cemetery. Can't you get anything right?

And I would suspect that the historic site--not national monument; there is none for Lee--reveals no such thing, but it's largely immaterial anyway, since the historical inaccuracy of claims made about historical sites operated by the National Park Service is a matter of record (see James Loewen's Lies Across America: What Our Historic Sites Get Wrong).

For the record, Lee didn't free his slaves, he freed somebody else's slaves. When George Washington Parke Custis, he left a provision in his will stipulating that his slaves were to be freed entirely by, at most, five years after his death. There was no way to contest the stipulation without voiding the will. Lee himself was a minor slaveowner who was never was without around half a dozen slaves.

I demand your respect or I will not give you an inkling of mine.

Oh, and by the way, since you haven't respected us enough to not lie to us, your respect is worth nothing.

straight from the wiki article on Lee; do note the highlighted portion. The original cite is:

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gazetteer/People/Robert_E_Lee/FRE…

which fails to mention, oddly any time that Lee ran for office before or during the Civil War...

better check those "textbooks" of yours again.

I tend to stay away from "wiki" as a reliable source of information .... a national monument has more credibility.

By the way, an inkling is a notion, not some unit of measure. If you cannot be honest with us, at least stop butchering the English language. It is a nice language that has done nothing to deserve it, even though it has been used to write the Left Behind series and Orson Scott Card's Empire. I'm sick of going over your posts as if they were writen in Linear B, trying desperately to figure out what you could have meant by your choice of words.

I tend to stay away from "wiki" as a reliable source of information .... a national monument has more credibility.

indeed, which is why i linked to the original cite, fuckhead.

it's public domain, too, so even a fucktard like yourself has access to it.

go on. read some real history and learn something for a change.

do you have kids? do you do this song and dance for them?

ever consider the damage you are doing to them?

no, wait, you don't have kids, do you.

no worries then.

While the whole thing about the Spartan infants is actually interesting to me, it will require reading the actual research article rather than the news releases.

However! It is entirely beside the point.

Hitler thought that Spartans murdering infants was true. Hitler approved of it. Hitler copied it in his euthanasia programs. Hitler's euthanasia program had nothing to do with Darwin.

Richard Weikart already proved the Hitler-Darwin connection. Read his book if your interested "From Darwin to Hitler"

I tend to stay away from "wiki" as a reliable source of information .... a national monument has more credibility.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahah!

I just about died from laughing at this! If your side of the conversation is completely without honesty, at least it is not without humour. For one thing, there is no national monument dedicated to Lee. His house is simply preserved by the National Parks Service as a historic site. The fact that you cannot tell the difference really diminishes the credibility of your claim to have read support for your claims there.

I tend to stay away from "wiki" as a reliable source of information .... a national monument has more credibility.

indeed, which is why i linked to the original cite, fuckhead.

it's public domain, too, so even a fucktard like yourself has access to it.

go on. read some real history and learn something for a change.

do you have kids? do you do this song and dance for them?

ever consider the damage you are doing to them?

no, wait, you don't have kids, do you.

no worries then.

Yes, my 4 year old has more maturity and comprehension than you.

Richard Weikart already proved the Hitler-Darwin connection. Read his book if your interested "From Darwin to Hitler"

Here's another hint: saying something and adducing evidence for it are unrelated concepts. Since you seem to be having problems with that concept here, I will say that just because someone publishes it in a book doesn't make it correct. It's the quality of the scholarship that counts.

you won't catch my kids saying this:

"YOU KNOW WHAT I LOVE??? Natural SELECTION! It's the best thing that ever happened to the Earth. Getting rid of all the stupid and weak organisms."
- Eric Harris

Richard Weikart already proved the Hitler-Darwin connection.

nice imitation of James Kennedy, but you're still wrong, and so was he.

you have all the information you need to see there in fact was no link at all between Darwin and Hitler, and that Hitler based Mein Kampf's sociology mostly on the writings of Martin Luther.

this is historical fact. all you have to do is actually read what Hitler wrote to see for yourself.

but you won't do that, will you?

you prefer to hear lies from the mouths of those who would abuse your trust to sell books to you?

of course you do.

pathetic.

Kennedy is dead. So is the idea that "Darwinism" has anything to do with human political and social philosophies.

only morons like yourself remain, desperately sucking their thumbs while their peers clamp hands over eyes and ears.

short version:

you're a moron, and proud of it.

don't have kids. really. help us put an end to mindless mindlessness.

Richard Weikart already proved the Hitler-Darwin connection. Read his book if your interested "From Darwin to Hitler"

Weikart is brilliantly dissected here.

I tend to stay away from "wiki" as a reliable source of information .... a national monument has more credibility.

Not really. National monuments are very often put up by people with specific agendas, especially Confederate-revisionist ones.

If Lee ran for the presidency of the CSA, it would be somewhere on the Internet.

Hell, if there had ever been a campaign for the presidency of the CSA, it would be somewhere on the Internet.

Here is a tip for your hint - read the book, then judge it. You have already predetermined it is false. It is almost as if you are unwilling/unable to process information - then make a decision as to its validity.

Like I said earlier, I really DO know all the tricks.

"YOU KNOW WHAT I LOVE??? Natural SELECTION! It's the best thing that ever happened to the Earth. Getting rid of all the stupid and weak organisms."

I'm already familiar with Harris' ravings, as I've read the entirety of what is publicly available from his journal. He understood evolutionary biology and natural selection about as well as you appear to, for what it's worht (i.e., not much).

Not really. National monuments are very often put up by people with specific agendas, especially Confederate-revisionist ones.

If Lee ran for the presidency of the CSA, it would be somewhere on the Internet.

Hell, if there had ever been a campaign for the presidency of the CSA, it would be somewhere on the Internet.

Ummm ... ok, Jefferson Davis was gonna be like, president fuhever dude.

Arlington Memorial was actually the Yankees way of insulting the south. They kicked Rob outta his house and buried all the war time dead around it.

Go figure ... an insult turned out to be a honor to be buried near his home.

btw, you evidently know as much about natural selection as Harris and Klebold did.

does that mean you will find your own kids saying just that?

It's something I'd worry about, if I were you.

when you teach lies to your children, this is just the kind of thing you end up with.

your kids will hate you when they learn the truth.

better not have kids then, right?

"Like I said earlier, I really DO know all the tricks."

No Steven, you simply have a problem we're all too familiar with around these parts: you are pig ignorant, but you harbor the illusion of knowledge. This is a particularly dangerous combination.

"YOU KNOW WHAT I LOVE??? Natural SELECTION! It's the best thing that ever happened to the Earth. Getting rid of all the stupid and weak organisms."

Yeah, I know that trick too.

When someone refutes evolution, it must be because they dont understand it ;)

Of course, they must be stupid religious people. I know that trick all too well.

Like I said earlier, I really DO know all the tricks.

LOL

you don't know shit from shinola, to borrow a colloquial phrase.

Did you ever read Weikart's book yourself, or did you rely on third party reports on the book that synthesized the central theme in nice little digestible chunks for you?

I'm betting you actually don't really read much original work.

I'm sure you'll lie and say you did, though.

How much you wanna bet I know more about Weikart's piece of crap than you do?

Yeah, I know that trick too.

what trick?

natural selection is about survival of the FITTEST, not necessarily the strongest.

can you define what fitness means, moron?

well?

we're waiting.

When someone refutes evolution, it must be because they dont understand it ;)

by the by, you haven't spent a single word of your inane ramblings actually refuting any part of evolutionary theory.

hmm.

wonder why that is?

Steven, isn't there some good in the world you should be doing? All that Christian Grace, and you've got nothing better to do with it than argue with a bunch of people over the internet, especially since you claim you "can see its [sic] already pointless"? Aren't there poor people you could be feeding right now? Perhaps some injured or sick you could be volunteering to help make feel better? I'll bet there's at least some lonely old lady who'd appreciate you reading to her out of the Good Book.

If Christians really are all that and a bag of chips, you must be the weakest, laziest, and generally stupidest of the bunch for sacrificing so much of that precious, precious time God granted you for the good of the world on a waste of time such as us.

General Lee planned to free the slaves (well, according to you at least) and your best effort to follow his lead is to irritate a bunch of blog readers? Boy, you're a real fucking emmissary of your faith, aren't you? They should just send you over to Iraq. Why, I'll bet those heathens would all convert in an instant if they could just hear a few words from you on how you honoured the legacy of the great Emancipators of Christianity by heckling on Pharyngula.

Yeah, a real fucking saint you are.

Like I said earlier, I really DO know all the tricks.

Yes, apparently in addition to outright lying, you're demonstrating the trick of misrepresenting what the other person is saying.

For the congenitally clueless-for the record, this means you-I was merely remarking that your claim that Weikart had proven anything, and that we only needed to read the book to know that, was suspect because the book is not its own proof. It's the scholarship that goes into the book that makes its case, not the mere fact that some publisher has seen fit to unleash it on the public.

If you can provide us with some reason to believe that Weikart's scholarship is any better than yours, then it will be worth our time, not before.

Steven, isn't there some good in the world you should be doing?

yeah, he's got those pretend kids he should be taking care of.

Ummm ... ok, Jefferson Davis was gonna be like, president fuhever dude.

As was already pointed out to you, Jefferson Davis was going to be president for six years. The Civil War ended the Confederacy with a full two years left to go in his term. There was no cause to be campaigning for the presidency at the time of the end of the Civil War (and Robert E. Lee had, I hear, his hands full with other matters at that time anyway).

Yeah, I know that trick too.

what trick?

natural selection is about survival of the FITTEST, not necessarily the strongest.

can you define what fitness means, moron?

well?

we're waiting.

maybe you missed something. Yeah, you did. I do not believe in the evolution theory. I believe in intelligent design.

If you can tell me how the bombardier beetle survived (in accordance with the process of natural selection) then I will answer your question.

baaaah .... baaaaahhh

If you can tell me how the bombardier beetle survived (in accordance with the process of natural selection) then I will answer your question.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html

Now answer the question.

I heart Huckabee (but everyone knows Hillary was "vying" for years).

"When someone refutes evolution, it must be because they dont understand it ;)"

"Refute"? I don't think that word means what you think it means. In any case, whether you really meant "dispute" or not is irrelevant. You've demonstrated your lack of competence in even the most rudimentary aspects of logic and exposition, let alone evolutionary biology. That is the problem, your failure to recognize it notwithstanding.

I do not believe in the evolution theory. I believe in intelligent design.

but you said you understood the theory implicitly in your statement that we were just using a trick on you, right?

so, are you admitting you haven't the slightest clue how the theory actually works, even at the most basic, basic level?

well, if you like ID, tell us how we can use intelligent design as a theory, and how we can then use that theory to test whether or not the bombadier beetle is intelligently designed.

can't do that either?

uh, what good are you again?

you lied about having kids, right?

Was that supposed to be a response?

If so:

EPIC FAIL

And for the record, let's list the issues Steven has dodged:

1) You have yet to reconcile your claim that Georgia was an abolitionist state with the evidence I posted that there were over 100,000 slaves in Georgia by 1810.

2) You have yet to explain exactly what religious affiliation the 15th and 16th century Dutch and Portugese had if it was not Christian

4) You have failed to provide historical evidence that Robert E. Lee only converted to Christianity later in his life.

5) You have failed to explain exactly who took over power from the Christians at the end of this entirely fictitious period of abolitionism in Georgia's [non-]history.

6) You have failed to support your claim that both Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson were campaigning for president, and making stump speeches in support of abolitionism.

7) You have failed utterly to support your claim that African slaves were far better off in slavery than back home in Africa.

This is interactive, folks, so feel free to add your list of points Steven has been running from.

If you can tell me how the bombardier beetle survived (in accordance with the process of natural selection) then I will answer your question.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html

Now answer the question.

If YOU can't answer the question, but rely heavily on a website written by those who have already predetermined creationism to be a hoax (without any real proof), then sadly, you cannot think for yourself.

Yes, I know that trick too. I have read this article at least 15 times when it is cited by different so called "atheists" who claim they can think for themselves, but rely on other people's interpretatations rather than their own. I can't say I blame them, it certainly is easier this way for them.

Actually answering this question requires YOUR answer.

I heart Huckabee (but everyone knows Hillary was "vying" for years).

that's it boy!

tie your wagon to a broken down horse.

oh, btw, thanks for that. It was morons like yourself loving Huckleberry that lost him the rethuglican nomination.

good job.

I should get the democratic party to cut you a check.

face it, you guys are going down in flames. Your only chance is to kill all the rest of us smart-folk to preserve your ignorant way of life.

so get on with it already.

it's what you want, right?

you own a gun, don't you?

you could relive the Civil War, and win it for ignorant people everywhere!

"I can't say I blame them, it certainly is easier this way for them."

And I bet you thought up all your canned objections to evolutionary theory yourself and didn't rely on pamphlets from some evangelical church in bumfuck, red state X.

You asked for a detailed explanation, someone provided one. The next proper step is to raise some objection to it, no flail your arms and gnash your teeth about who it came from.

And for the record, let's list the issues Steven has dodged:

1) You have yet to reconcile your claim that Georgia was an abolitionist state with the evidence I posted that there were over 100,000 slaves in Georgia by 1810.

I have answered this question when you were snoozing - John Oglethorpe

2) You have yet to explain exactly what religious affiliation the 15th and 16th century Dutch and Portugese had if it was not Christian

This is your interpretation of what was said - The Africans who taught the slave trade to the dutch and portuguese were not christian - the native americans who traded slaves were not christian

Go to the Arlington National Cemetery. Read the letter I posted (oh wait, you did, but didn't understand it)

4) You have failed to provide historical evidence that Robert E. Lee only converted to Christianity later in his life.

You can be raised a Baptist but actually be an atheist

5) You have failed to explain exactly who took over power from the Christians at the end of this entirely fictitious period of abolitionism in Georgia's [non-]history.

Again - who is John Oglethorpe? when did he lose power?

6) You have failed to support your claim that both Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson were campaigning for president, and making stump speeches in support of abolitionism.

No - I actually did submit a full letter (not a snippet) from Robert E. Lee.

7) You have failed utterly to support your claim that African slaves were far better off in slavery than back home in Africa.

I did not make that claim, Robert E. Lee did. Again, your misinterpretation of what I said is astounding. Its not surprising however when you claim to know what Robert E. Lee was talking about in his letter.

This is interactive, folks, so feel free to add your list of points Steven has been running from.

Actually answering this question requires YOUR answer.

Okay, my answer is that the claim that the bombardier beetle would have exploded is a creationist myth which has been exhaustively debunked so much that the very use of it as an argument anymore marks the user as a hopeless rube.

Now answer his question. Or answer mine.

For that matter, in your striving to absolve Christianity from any connexion to slavery, why don't you explain why Paul sent an escaped slave and Christian convert named Onesimus back to his owner (Epistle to Philemon) and demanded that slaves were to obey their worldly masters with fear and trembling (Ephesians 6:5)?

I can't say I blame them, it certainly is easier this way for them."

And I bet you thought up all your canned objections to evolutionary theory yourself and didn't rely on pamphlets from some evangelical church in bumfuck, red state X.

You asked for a detailed explanation, someone provided one. The next proper step is to raise some objection to it, no flail your arms and gnash your teeth about who it came from.

Actually, my "canned objections" did not come from some evangelical church. But of course, your assumptions are ever so clever.

My information comes from University level courses I graduated from as well as personal experience. I do not regurgitate canned knowledge from a person who claims to know more about something than I. I am able to think for myself and research for myself.

Nullifidian,
You of course have only fallen to another trick. The bible is the work of someone else. You must make all your claims on evidence that you have found yourself, which cannot include the work of anyone else, otherwise you're not researching, only parroting. Even if it's true, it doesn't count. As a matter of fact, especially if it's true.

I have read this article at least 15 times when it is cited by different so called "atheists" who claim they can think for themselves, but rely on other people's interpretatations rather than their own. I can't say I blame them, it certainly is easier this way for them.

you can't even define fitness, but you want the entire evolution stepwise of the traits involved in the beetle's defense mechanism?

that's like saying you don't understand how to add, but want a mathematician to explain approximation theory to you.

btw, it doesn't matter WHAT trait you choose to decide you wish to see an evolutionary history of, does it?

it's not like actually citing research on the evolution of such a trait would be read or understood by you, right?

for that matter, it's quite clear you don't even understand how ID would propose such a trait developed.

*shrug*

what is the point of answering questions you won't understand the answers to?

you haven't actually read any of the ID work, have you? Have you read any of Bill Dembski's inane mathematical ramblings in No Free Lunch?

no?

you haven't actually read Weikart's book, have you?

you don't really know much of anything, do you?

who are you trying to convince?

your imaginary children?

do you realize you are little more than a joke?

how's that make you feel?

Actually answering this question requires YOUR answer.

Now answer his question. Or answer mine.

Sure thing - what does the bible say about treating slaves. What is the greek and hebrew lexicon for the english word slave?

What happens when a soldier goes awol?

so I will ask now and hold my peace.

Really? Great!

And, yet, you're still here-

Babbling about a dozen different things, bringing up topics only to drop them when you're proven ignorant, Then turning around to bend the conversation in some, completely absurd direction with a handful of new, completely non-sequitor objections. The classic Gish style.

So, basically, you lied from the start.

How very christian of you.

The Africans who taught the slave trade to the dutch and portuguese were not christian

was the pope?

I gave you all the information you needed to research the actual history of slavery in Europe, and you didn't even bother to glance at it, did you.

are you SURE you want us to take you seriously?

You know, a soldier goes awol when they are trying to escape something.

The only reason a slave (or employee/indentured servant) would escape is to escape from a crime they committed. Such as was Onesimus situation.

After 465 comments I must wonder if anyone has asked Steven what verifiable predictions ID makes and what evidence supports those conclusions? I'm loathe to reread this whole monster for this fact alone. Can anyone elucidate?

Jefferson Davis was gonna be like, president fuhever dude.

Actually, he was. I know it's true, because I read it on a Confederate national monument, somewhere in Virgina.

See? My national monument refutes yours! Mine wins!

The Africans who taught the slave trade to the dutch and portuguese were not christian

was the pope?

I gave you all the information you needed to research the actual history of slavery in Europe, and you didn't even bother to glance at it, did you.

are you SURE you want us to take you seriously?

I certainly will not take history lessons from this forum. Judging from what I have seen, so few people are able to even read implications, inflections, or comprehend at the 8th grade level.

No offense, but I have already studied the Atlantic Slave Trade. I will not rehash what I know to be fact with you.

My information comes from University level courses

bald-faced lie.

boy, you sure are doin' a good job representin' there, Stevo.

ya see, you keep seeming to forget we actually DID go to college, and most of us have advanced degrees in the very fields you think yourself so knowledgeable in.

Moron.

I certainly will not take history lessons from this forum

i didn't fucking ask you to, moron. which, again, is why i provided links directly to the original information.

you can't lie your way out of this.

"My information comes from University level courses I graduated from as well as personal experience."

LOL! What "university" did these take place in? Liberty?

And what, praytell, does "personal experience" have to do with any of it? You have personal experience as a professional biologist? I rather strenuously doubt it.

"I do not regurgitate canned knowledge from a person who claims to know more about something than I. I am able to think for myself and research for myself."

Yep, suuuuure you are. If that helps you sleep at night.

The only reason a slave (or employee/indentured servant) would escape is to escape from a crime they committed.

Funny, that's exactly what the slaveowners of the South said!

Of course, they made escaping a crime, so the crime the slave was trying to escape was the crime of escaping itself.

No offense, but I have already studied the Atlantic Slave Trade

Offense taken. You do nothing but lie. How could you not provide offense to any rational individual?

I find you utterly offensive, let alone utterly ignorant.

you reek of BS.

kindly go shove your head back up your ass where it obviously has been very happy up until you decided to let your shit spew out on this forum.

Ichthyic,
You too have fallen into another trick. Evolutionists always call bullshit when something looks askew with "reality." Thus, when you call bullshit, trick can be stated and the point passed over.

"Trick," is the ultimate trump card. Didn't you know? They're teaching that at all the university level classes these days.

here is just one. I am going to bed soon and this is going to be my very last comment.

Wisdom of Solomon (Apocrypha) Capter 7

17: For he hath given me certain knowledge of the things that are, namely, to know how the world was made, and the operation of the elements:
18: The beginning, ending, and midst of the times: the alterations of the turning of the sun, and the change of seasons:

Bear in mind, this was written well before NASA made the discovery that the sun actually rotates differentially. Also, it was written well before NASA discovered thatthe sun, every 300 years or so, affects our climate.

Of course, judging from what I have seen and read by some of the comments on this forum, some will have to attend at least a few more English courses, possibly above the 300 level to get it.

This is your interpretation of what was said - The Africans who taught the slave trade to the dutch and portuguese were not christian - the native americans who traded slaves were not christian

Again, a contemptible non-sequitur.

Come on, stupid- answer the question. Regardless of what the Native Americans might have been doing, and despite the religious leanings of your imagined Africans, and ignoring the role of the English in the slave trade-

"what religious affiliation the 15th and 16th century Dutch and Portugese had if it was not Christian?"

It's a very simple question.

I must wonder if anyone has asked Steven what verifiable predictions ID makes and what evidence supports those conclusions?

yes, we have.

he knows as much about ID as he does about anything else he has decided to ramble about. which is to say, absolutelyfuckingnothing.

which of course, is exactly what the purveyors of such claptrap count on.

Stevo is a prime example of the audience ID is directed at.

You too have fallen into another trick. Evolutionists always call bullshit when something looks askew with "reality." Thus, when you call bullshit, trick can be stated and the point passed over.

uh, i got news for ya, bright boy, anybody would call BS on your ramblings, it doesn't matter who.

I bet I could find a random neighbor of yours that would also see you have been lieing your whole time here.

it doesn't take a genius, or even someone of average intelligence, to see through YOUR BS.

really.

it's that pathetically bad.

Again, a contemptible non-sequitur.

you better define what a non-sequitur is for him.

come to think of it, you better define 'contemptible' as well.

Wow, Steven.
That is of course a wonderful interpretation with the present facts known. I'm left to wonder though what people of the time would have read that to mean? Possibly, that the sun turns around the earth, which is the center of the universe? I see no reason why my reading is less than yours, if not more sensible.

I have answered this question when you were snoozing - John Oglethorpe

You mean James Oglethorpe. And James Oglethorpe was on the Board of Trustees when Georgia was an ENGLISH COLONY!

COLONY =/= STATE

Here is what you claimed:

The State of Georgia was an abolitionist state the first 20 years of its existence because christians held the majority of political power during that time.

However, it was not the State of Georgia, but the Colony of Georgia, and it was abolitionist because it interfered with their vision for the colony and provided an opening to their enemies, particularly the Spanish, to promise freedom to escaped slaves who would fight with them against the British.

Secondly, Oglethorpe didn't "lose power". He was always on the Board of Trustees; he just stopped showing up to meetings.

Chalk one up towards your manifest incompetence about history--you couldn't even get the name right!

This is your interpretation of what was said

Again, what you said:

Ka-ching, the Portuguese and Dutch were the first to cash in.

But ... wait a minute, they weren't christians. Hmmmmmm.

If you can provide any reasonable reading where that doesn't refer to the Dutch and the Portugese, I'd love to know.

Go to the Arlington National Cemetery. Read the letter I posted (oh wait, you did, but didn't understand it)

Go to the Arlington National Cemetery is not a response. For one thing, I doubt that you've been, otherwise you would not have called it the Arlington Memorial Cemetery. Furthermore, it is YOUR responsibility to demonstrate that what you claim is there is there, AND that it is accurate (remember my referencing Lies Across America? I wasn't doing that just because the words looked pretty).

Plus, Owlmirror already demonstrated that it is you who failed to understand the Lee letter. My synopsis of it, on the other hand, was accurate.

Read for comprehension much?

Although the abolitionist must know this, must know that he has neither the right not the power of operating, except by moral means; that to benefit the slave he must not excite angry feelings in the master; that, although he may not approve the mode by which Providence accomplishes its purpose, the results will be the same; and that the reason he gives for interference in matters he has no concern with, holds good for every kind of interference with our neighbor, -still, I fear he will persevere in his evil course. . . . Is it not strange that the descendants of those Pilgrim Fathers who crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom have always proved the most intolerant of the spiritual liberty of others?

Dude, Robert E. FUCKING Lee is saying that abolitionists are on "an evil course"; that they are intolerant of "the spiritual liberty of others", where "others" means "slaveowners".

Again, not only demonstrating your historical ignorance, but also your inability to read for comprehension. What is that? Three strikes?

You can be raised a Baptist but actually be an atheist

Yes, but the point is that you have not demonstrated that Lee was an atheist at ANY time. Got it? Good. Now start with the evidence. I will call this the fourth strike.

Again - who is John Oglethorpe? when did he lose power?

Again, nobody and never. Fifth strike.

6) You have failed to support your claim that both Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson were campaigning for president, and making stump speeches in support of abolitionism.

No - I actually did submit a full letter (not a snippet) from Robert E. Lee.

Which didn't support your claim, but actually read correctly showed exactly the converse, was written in 1856, five years before the Confederacy EXISTED, and was not a campaign stump speech but rather a letter to his wife. I think we can call this strikes six, seven, and eight.

Now you're just proving yourself to be a liar, in addition to an ignoramus and a butcher of English prose.

Here is what you said:

An African slave's life was far better than a life they would have had in Africa (for the majority).

Here is where you said it.

This is strike nine. You've been "out" three times over. Now go back to the dugout and learn something about the things you pontificate about, and stop lying and being a racist arse, then lying about being a racist arse to cover yourself.

I'm sure it's been a long thread, but turn your sarcasm meter back on my man. ;)

Otherwise, I'll be scrolling back up the tread to see what evidence steve gave. I've heard only a few answers to that question, so I'm interested to see what he came up with.

17: For he hath given me certain knowledge of the things that are, namely, to know how the world was made, and the operation of the elements:

uh, so if you can get the wisdom of Solomon (can you even prove he existed, btw?) from reading your book, why don't you tell us what you learned about how the elements operate, and then use what you learned to explain how to construct an experiment to test the efficacy of your knowledge.

or is your book actually a worthless piece of crap that contains no explanatory knowledge whatsoever, beyond what might have been useful to a bunch of goatherders thousands of years ago?

c'mon jimmyjoebobsteven. show us how it all works. edumacate usn's

I'll be scrolling back up the tread to see what evidence steve gave

good luck.

I'm sure it's been a long thread, but turn your sarcasm meter back on my man. ;)

it's hard to tell, given that he basically said the same damn thing several times, and he refuses to use quotes or anything to delineate what others have said when he uses it in his own posts.

Your post looked just like another one of his, and I mistook it for one.

Sure thing - what does the bible say about treating slaves.

Nothing. This is not a response to my question about Philemon.

What is the greek and hebrew lexicon for the english word slave?

Irrelevant. Philemon wasn't written in Hebrew, and knowing the Greek for slave doesn't assist us in understanding how the Pauline demands that an escaped slave should return and that all slaves should obey their worldly masters with fear and trembling.

What happens when a soldier goes awol?

Irrelevant. A soldier is not a slave. However, if they go AWOL, they are court martialed and given a dishonourable or less than honourable discharge.

Sure thing - what does the bible say about treating slaves.

Well, for starters:

"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly"

So, basically, you can buy, sell, and will to your children other humans, as long as they aren't your fellow Jews.

And this is different from what occurred in American slavery exactly how?

18: The beginning, ending, and midst of the times: the alterations of the turning of the sun, and the change of seasons:

Bear in mind also that it was written when the sun was believed to orbit the earth, and therefore the "turning of the sun" doesn't necessarily refer to the rotation of the sun about its axis, but rather the orbit of the sun around the earth.

And the fact that the movement of the sun was related to the seasons was already worked out by the guys who built Stonehenge and by the Pueblo and Anasazi aboriginals. BFD.

17: For he hath given me certain knowledge of the things that are, namely, to know how the world was made, and the operation of the elements:

or is your book actually a worthless piece of crap that contains no explanatory knowledge whatsoever, beyond what might have been useful to a bunch of goatherders thousands of years ago?

c'mon jimmyjoebobsteven. show us how it all works. edumacate usn's

here I am holding your hand again (sigh)

first of all - the Apocrypha was translated into English approximately 1568 (before NASA).

The text was obviously older than that - but its important to remember, it was before NASA (rolling eyes).

You can argue all you want to about the existence or non existence of King Solomon - that isn't important. What is important, is that it was written before the existence of NASA (shaking head).

Not only does the text read that the author knew the sun rotated, but he also knew the sun rotated differentially.

He knew about the altering of the turning of the sun. If you still don't get it, then yes, your a moron.

Well, for starters:

So, basically, you can buy, sell, and will to your children other humans, as long as they aren't your fellow Jews.

And this is different from what occurred in American slavery exactly how?

So a US soldier isn't property how?

according to my understanding of the word "slave" as it is worded in the KJV, it basically means a person in debt.

I did not make that claim, Robert E. Lee did.

liar, you yourself made that exact claim just a few posts after you posted your quotemine of Lee's letter.

the sure sign of a bad liar is that they quickly get their lies mixed up.

re-read what you wrote in #377, liar. to whit:

An African slave's life was far better than a life they would have had in Africa (for the majority).

oops.

that's you a-sayin' that there, huckleberry.

now that it should be even clear to yourself that you are a liar, care to continue prevaricating for our amusement, or are you done?

you're a credit to morons and liars everywhere.

according to my understanding of the word "slave" as it is worded in the KJV, it basically means a person in debt.

And you couldn't be more wrong. Congratulations. It's an unbroken streak.

And the fact that the movement of the sun was related to the seasons was already worked out by the guys who built Stonehenge and by the Pueblo and Anasazi aboriginals. BFD.

O.k. that was the next bit of stupidity I was going to comment on. But, since you did a better job than I would have, I'll differ, except to say:

Really? That's the best you can do?

Really?!!

re-read what you wrote in #377, liar. to whit:

I posted about that already, but it ended up in P-Zed's Spamcatcher, so I'm not sure when or if it will be posted.

*sigh*