Jan 042006
 

Thanks to Mike at TT for alerting me to this PZ diatribe.

One thing you have to give PZ credit for, unlike edarrell and Ken Miller, is that he is honest about Darwinism. He is a zealot for his Atheism. He is a rabid Darwinist. I think he would be proud that such terms are use to describe him.

The question you have to ask is that when you have someone who is so fervently religious can he at all be objective? Science is an objective pursuit for knowledge. When PZ is talking about science, he is really talking about a perversion of science. He is sacrificing the objective truth at the altar of Darwinism. The man is on a crusade to persecute all those who would dare to question his god. His god of atheistic Darwinism is the absolute truth and all who questions it should be destroyed. He is the atheistic prophet and the angel of death. No one will come to science except through PZ.

we’re even pleased to point out to the creationists that many of our leading lights have been and are religious (Dobzhansky, Ayala, Miller, Collins: it isn’t at all difficult to find people who can do both good science and follow a religion in their private life). It is self-evident that scientists are not necessarily derisive of religion, and also that science as an abstract concept can’t be derisive at all. However, I do think that the processes of science are antithetical to the processes of religion -personal revelation and dogma are not accepted forms of evidence in the sciences- and that people can encompass both clashing ideas is nothing but a testimony to the flexibility of the human mind, which has no problem partitioning and embracing many contradictions.

First thing to notice is that PZ praise people like Miller and Collins as leading light of his religion because… Yes that’s right they are not creationists. He then confirms that his religious processes of science are antithetical to other religions. Finally, he explain why people like Miller and Collins are “useful idiots” because they can incorporate the contradicting idea of God into the reality of the Darwinian religion. PZ’s strategy is to first eliminate the Christians then the “useful idiots”.

I really think we (not me, of course, but the general “we” of all of us ladies and gentlemen fighting creationism) go too far in trying to present science as compatible and even friendly to religion. It’s not.

The whole philosophy of critical thinking and demanding reproducible evidence arms its proponents with a wicked sharp knife that is all too easily applied to religious beliefs, which rely entirely on credulity.

This is laughable coming from a person whose belief is based entirely on irreproducible fairy tales. ๐Ÿ˜€

The religious know that a well-educated populace with a good background in science would mean church attendance would fade away, especially for the more stridently evangelical/fundamentalist (AKA “insane”) sects.

I was about to say the same for PZ, the stridently evangelical atheist (AKA “insane”) sects. This is the reason why the fundamentalists prohibit the teaching of the problems of evolution in schools, right PZ?

We are being disingenuous when we claim science is compatible with religion. It’s compatible with a kind of thoughtful religion that consciously sets itself aside as dealing solely with a metaphysical domain, not the world; it encourages the apostasy of deism and agnosticism, and can easily lead people into the path of atheism.

This is so funny. Miller, Collins, are you listening to this? Your religious belief is only compatible to science if it leads you into the “TRUE” path of atheism. LOL!

It’s a strength. Creationists hate the guy because he doesn’t just stand against one ludicrous symptom of their belief system, he goes straight to the root with scathing rhetoric against the whole monumental pile of rickety confabulations. Look at how they react to him: …

Now, really, how can you but admire someone who gets such press from such execrable sources?

When creationists carp at the uncompromising atheism of people like Dawkins, let’s not pander to them and thereby validate their complaints by offering up some more palatable Christian proxy, but instead stand up for them. Yes, he’s a forthright atheist… and so was John Maynard Smith and Ernst Mayr and Francis Crick and many, many others. We like them. Have you got a problem with that?

LOL! You’ve got to love the guy. He has such a way with words. ๐Ÿ˜€

OOPS, I am sorry PZ I didn’t mean to say love; I meant we hate you.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
130 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Benjii
Benjii
14 years ago

In the future, it will be the atheists looking at themselves, trying to reconcile their beliefs-or lack of it-with ID. It’s the same way religious people have felt about Darwinism-either you try to reconcile or forge it altogether.

Benjii
Benjii
14 years ago

Change ‘forge’ with ‘Forgo’.

John A. Davison
John A. Davison
14 years ago

When I visited and posted at P.Z. Meyers’ forum Pharyngula, he responded with “Your stench has preceded you,” following which I was immediately banned from further communication. Meyers is very much like Richard Dawkins, completely consumed with certainty that there was never any purpose in the history of life. Gould, Mayr and Provine had a slightly less virulent form of the same congenital condition. I do not jest when I suggest that such conditions have a heritable basis. Such minds are incapapble of scientific inquiry. They are of the genre that Einstein described as being “unable to hear the music of the spheres.” It is a blessing that both Mayr and Gould did not live to appreciate the fact that they had dedicated their entire professional lives to a myth, that Darwinism never had anything to do with creative evolution and that creative evolution was no longer even in progress. Many of my sources had reached those conclusions and had done so on independent grounds. It will be very interesting to see how Dawkins and Meyers each deal with the inevitable realization that they have wasted their lives chasing a phantom. I do not see any means by which they can escape the trap they have so meticulously prepared for themselves. They were “prescribed” to be intellectual, emotional and scientific disasters.

Darwinism in all its many forms is in its death throes and I for one am delighted to be able to play a part in its imminent and inevitable demise. I am confident we will not have to wait very much longer. Trust me but of course most of you won’t because you can’t. Your genome will not permit it. It really doesn’t matter as at 78 I am now absolutely certain. We are all victims of our prescribed fate. Some of us have been luckier than others.

“Marx, Darwin and Freud are the three most crashing bores in the Western World.”
William Golding

Two down, one to go.

How do you like them anchovy stuffed black olives? Tasty aren’t they.

teleologist
14 years ago

anchovy stuffed black olives?

I love anchovy but olives? Not so much.

Meyers is very much like Richard Dawkins, completely consumed with certainty that there was never any purpose in the history of life. Gould, Mayr and Provine had a slightly less virulent form of the same congenital condition. I do not jest when I suggest that such conditions have a heritable basis. Such minds are incapapble of scientific inquiry.

So is this empirical proof that ontology recapitulates phenogeny? ๐Ÿ˜€ I love it. You too have a way with words Prof. I am embarrassed to confess that sometimes I find his shtick quite entertaining.

Alan Fox
Alan Fox
14 years ago

As a representative of the other of those “two peoples divided by a common language” , I am mystified at the level of ire that can be aroused by a statement of personal belief. Does no-one here still consider the old maxim

I may not agree with what you say, but to your death I will defend your right to say it

valid anymore? I learned as child that the USA was the land of free speech. What has changed?

In the UK, no-one raises an eyebrow when Richard Dawkins talks of his atheism. He is allowed to walk the streets of Oxford unmolested. (I am tempted to contrast this with the Mirecki incident but facts, though not opinions, are scarce)

Really, why the fuss?

John A. Davison
John A. Davison
14 years ago

The “fuss” is over the way man is to regard his position in the universe. Is he an accident as Gould, Dawkins, Meyers , Mayr, Provine and thousands of other rabid homozygous atheists insist or is he the ultimate product of a plan as some of the finest minds of two centuries have proposed. I am delighted to identify with the latter group of real scientists not one of whom was known as a “professional evolutionist.” In other words the “fuss” is over the most important question that has ever been presented before civilized society, a question that has enormous implications for the future of civilization as we know it.

The real scientists reached their conclusions on the basis of empirical evidence not the most failed ideology in the history of civilization. Neo-Darwinism is nothing but mass hysteria perpetuated by generation after generation of academics who are genetically incapable of seeing that which is obvious to any objective observer. It makes the Salem Witch Trials look lke a Sunday school picnic. They remained glued to their endowed chairs while real scholars exposed the Great God Chance as nothing but a figment of an overactive human imagination.

Not one of the primary spokespersons for Darwinian materialism is now or ever was a scientist. Scientists ask questions and attempt to answer them. The Darwinians never ask questions as they have ready made answers. I defy anyone to identify a single scientific contribution that can be associated with any of the contemporary spokespersons for Darwinian materialism. Most of them never even had a laboratory or ever dirtied their dainty little fingers in a paleontologocal dig. Dawkins doesn’t even give lectures at Oxford any more. He is a force unto himself living in a fantasy world of his own design, oblivious to what is going on in the experimental laboratories of the world. I offered him my blog to “sell his product” just as I offered it to all the other luminaries now dominating the evolutionary scenario with all their empty rhetoric. Their collective and universal absence speaks for itself. Not even the second raters had anything tangible to offer. They still don’t. All they can do is snipe from behind their “groupthink” barricades offering up mindless platitudes signifying nothing, absolutely nothing. I love it so!

“War, God help me, I love it so.”
General George S. Patton

“Science commits suicide when she adopts a creed.”
Thomas Henry Huxley

Neo-Darwinism is the slowest yet most certain form of intellectual suicide yet conceived by the human imagination. It dwarfs Lamarckism, Etherism, Phlogistonism, Vulcanism, Neptunism, Spermatism, Ovism, not to mention Uniformitarianism, Communism and Poltical Lberalism. All three of the latter are intimately related to the atheist Darwinian fairy tale and may even be pleiotropic manifestations of the same genetic condition.

The scary thing is that some could even ask the question – why the fuss?

“Everything is determined… by forces over which we have no control.”
Albert Einstein

How do you like them lampooned strawberries?

Alan Fox
Alan Fox
14 years ago

You make my point for me, John. Why all the invective?

teleologist
14 years ago

BRAVO! Excellent comment and ditto.

teleologist
14 years ago

I may not agree with what you say, but to your death I will defend your right to say it

valid anymore?

You’ve got to be kidding, right? You should be asking Dawkins, PZ and other Darwinists this question. There is a war on Christianity and people of science by the atheistic Darwinists. There is absolutely no tolerance for people to question and challenge the Darwinian religious beliefs. Those who question the Darwinian priesthood are either insane or wicked according to Dawkins and PZ.

I am actually skeptical about your objectivity when you can ask a question like this.

Alan Fox
Alan Fox
14 years ago

Teleologist

I am under no illusions about my or anyone else’s objectivity. My point was how people (and it is something I have noticed particularly on US blogsites) are unable to disagree in a civilised manner. Especially when the disagreement is at the level of how many angels are dancing on a pinhead.

teleologist
14 years ago

I am under no illusions about my or anyone else’s objectivity. My point was how people (and it is something I have noticed particularly on US blogsites) are unable to disagree in a civilised manner. Especially when the disagreement is at the level of how many angels are dancing on a pinhead.

I accept that, but the fault lies with the fulmination of people like PZ and Dawkins. Their caustic behaviors have raised the level of shrillness long before ID blogs have been in existence. Frankly I don’t see any ID blogs approach close to the acrimony that comes forth from pro Darwinian blogs.

John A. Davison
John A. Davison
14 years ago

I detect no invective whatsoever in my most recent post. I meant every word of what I regard as an objective evaluation of the current situation. Alan Fox accusing me of invective is a classic example of the BIG LIE technique characteristic of all propagandists wherever one finds them. Never offering a positive statement himself he can only denigrate the offerings of others. I love it so!

Alan Fox
Alan Fox
14 years ago

John

If you can deny there is any invective tn this post and honestly believe it, we really do inhabit different realities

Daron
Daron
14 years ago

You raise a great point, Alan.
I have been unable to fathom the anger directed at people who disagree.
From the moment I entered the cyber-world to air my thoughts on this subject I have been assailed by verbal venom. “Idiot”, “liar”, “stone age”, “deluded” all to the question “why is there no room for an opposing point of view?”

I have seen it to varying levels on either side of the debate (or any debate), and I know you have faced it yourself.
I don’t agree with the strategy at all and try to avoid places where that is what passes for dialogue. My blood pressure really can’t take it.

If, however, you believe that what you have read above is invective you really ought to try to read with a little less bias. You know that the people in question have referred to those who disagree as “wicked”, “insane”, “child abusers”, “stupid”, “uneducated”, “dishonest”, have suggested they ought to have their children removed from them and that they be locked up, and have suggested that regardless of academic success they should not be awarded degrees, and once in teaching positions should be shamed and fired.

teleologist
14 years ago

By the way, I was drawn in the very first place to this debate by the now-famous National Geographic article which charged me $9 to exercise the right to call me ignorant and uneducated and that my failure to accept Darwinism was a “preferred” believed (as opposed, of course, to a rational and thoughtful one).

Very funny Daron. PZ would like you to know your preferred religious belief is fine, as long as it leads you into the “TRUE” path of Atheism. ๐Ÿ˜€

Beaming Visionary
14 years ago

Is there any particular reason why some here are so eager to associate Charles Darwin with atheism? The man was a Christian. (And regarding “Darwinism,” by which I assume you mean evolution in general: I assure you that screaming that it’s a scam and a myth, however shrilly, won’t make it so.)

This mischaracterization of Darwin, however, is surely among the least crippling knowledge deficits in this troglodyte den. Religious indoctrination plus low literacy level plus mutual reinforcement plus absent Web design skills equals one hell of an…uh, interesting blog.

John A. Davison
John A. Davison
14 years ago

I see no invective in my post. I see a reasoned analysis of the polarization that continues to plague communication. It is not invective when I regard both Biblical Fundamentalists and Darwinian Atheists as victims of their “prescribed” fates. That is precisely what all available evidence demands. In short I regard a “free will” with great suspicion just as Einstein so obviously did as well.

As usual Alan Fox contributes nothing to the substance of this or any other forum he has invaded. His sole purpose is to denigrate and create turmoil where none need exist. Those have always been the tactics of the denizens of Panda’s Thumb, also known as “Elsberry’s last stand” and the “Alamo of neo-Darwinism.” Everything that Panda’s Thumb stands for is anathema to me as it should be to any rational observer of the contemporary evolutionary scene. He is also making himself unwelcome at my blog which seems to be his forte. He is just a clone of edarrell, another Panda regular. Pardon my cynicism. It is entirely sincere.

Daron
Daron
14 years ago

By the way, I was drawn in the very first place to this debate by the now-famous National Geographic article which charged me $9 to exercise the right to call me ignorant and uneducated and that my failure to accept Darwinism was a “preferred” believed (as opposed, of course, to a rational and thoughtful one).

Nobody has ever questioned their right to freedom of speech, of belief or of the press.
But certainly the freedoms of their dissenters are questioned.

Beaming Visionary
14 years ago

It also appears that folks here are confused about the difference between squashing someone’s right to free expression and refusing to entertain their silly ideas. Of course you’re *legally* entitled to mount verbal challenges against evolution, atheism, and the English language itself. This doesn’t mean, however, that your ideas merit equal play by people of reason, and you cannot expect to see creation myths and other relics of bronze-age thinking held aloft alongside the scientific advancements of the 20th and 21st centuries. You are in effect claiming that it is unfair that not everyone gets to teach college physics, fly planes, or play in the NBA.

uncapaddy
uncapaddy
14 years ago

“There is a war on Christianity and people of science by the atheistic Darwinists”

Umm…so one needs to be a fundamentalist in order to be a Christian?

teleologist
14 years ago

Beaming Visionary,

Is there any particular reason why some here are so eager to associate Charles Darwin with atheism?

No reason other than a well-grounded observation. See here and here.

The man was a Christian.

Are you a Christian? How do you determine if someone is a Christian?

And regarding “Darwinism,” by which I assume you mean evolution in general

No that is not what I mean by Darwinism. That is not what IDists mean by Darwinism. It is generally not a good idea to assume without specific basis for your assumption. Please visit http://www.arn.org for a definition of Darwinism.

I assure you that screaming that it’s a scam and a myth, however shrilly, won’t make it so.

I agree. Do you think that same screaming and confident shrill declaring Darwinism as a fact will make it so?

This mischaracterization of Darwin, however, is surely among the least crippling knowledge deficits in this troglodyte den.

There is no mischaracterization of Darwin, but I thank you for stopping by to deliver your respectful and genteel discourse unlike what you find in this den.

Religious indoctrination plus low literacy level plus mutual reinforcement

Reading is overrated. I prefer religious assumption, don’t you?

plus absent Web design skills equals one hell of an”uh, interesting blog.

Thanks again. You do seem to have an affinity for trash.

teleologist
14 years ago

Beaming Visionary,

It also appears that folks here are confused about the difference between squashing someone’s right to free expression and refusing to entertain their silly ideas. Of course you’re legally entitled to mount verbal challenges against evolution, atheism, and the English language itself. This doesn’t mean, however, that your ideas merit equal play by people of reason,

You are right as usual. IDists and Religious Creationists are often confused. We really don’t know how to think without intellectual visionary like you to clear things up for us.

and you cannot expect to see creation myths and other relics of bronze-age thinking held aloft alongside the scientific advancements of the 20th and 21st centuries.

I am sorry we don’t know they are creation myths. We have low literacy levels, remember? You must be very well versed in ancient manuscripts, Biblical Archaeology and Near Eastern culture to make such claims.

You are in effect claiming that it is unfair that not everyone gets to teach college physics, fly planes, or play in the NBA.

You really are a savant. I fail to see how what I’ve actually posted can be equated to your analogy.

teleologist
14 years ago

uncapaddy,

“There is a war on Christianity and people of science by the atheistic Darwinists”
Umm”so one needs to be a fundamentalist in order to be a Christian?

What do you think it means to be a Christian? Do you think PZ, Dawkins and the likes are accepting of Christians?

Daron
Daron
14 years ago

Beaming Visionary,

Is there any particular reason why some here are so eager to associate Charles Darwin with atheism?

Did somebody do this? The post is about atheistic Darwinists (Meyers and Dawkins, in particular) and what they have plainly said/written. Did you notice the references to Miller and Collins (theistic Darwinists) in the post?

And regarding “Darwinism,” by which I assume you mean evolution in general

No, usually not. Definitely not in this context. John A. Davison here, for instance, is a published scientist who writes about his own theory of evolution – which rejects Darwinism and neo-Darwinism.

It also appears that folks here are confused about the difference between squashing someone’s right to free expression and refusing to entertain their silly ideas.

What gave that appearance?

You are in effect claiming that it is unfair that not everyone gets to teach college physics, fly planes, or play in the NBA.

That just doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.

Your speech seems well-rehearsed but hasn’t found its proper home.

John A. Davison
John A. Davison
14 years ago

I can’t speak for others but I am confused about nothing. Of course there has been great scientific advance but none of it can ever be reconciled with the Darwinian scheme. Everything we are learning pleads for an emergent evolution, now finished, which was goal directed and ascending with no room for chance at any time in its history. In other words everything we know represents the antithesis of the neo Darwinian paradigm. It remains what it was at its inception, a myth with no substance whatsoever. If some choose to still swallow it, that is fine with me. I can’t even get anyone to present a summary of the most ludicrous, unsubstantiated, ideologically generated departure from reality ever produced in the history of mankind.

Darwinism has proven to be worthy of my contempt and I am delighted to be the instrument for that response. If some of my sources had not been such perfect gentlemen in the past, Darwinism would have collapsed long ago. I would be delighted to get right down in the gutter with its exponents but they haven’t got the stomach for it. They are consummate cowards.

Here are the words that Harry Truman once used to describe a political opponent. I think it was Harold Ickes.

“He is a living miracle with neither brains nor guts.”

I now direct that comment to every devout believer in the Great God Chance within cybershot. I anticipate no response. Ideologues are like that.

“I have always felt that a politician is to be judged by the animosities he excites among his opponents.”
Winston Churchill

It seems I have been pretty successful as an evolutionary scientist. While I am loathed and denigrated by the amateurs, I am ignored, as were my sources, by the professionals and I know why. The Darwinian mystics don’t have a leg to stand on and they are finally beginning to realize it. For me it is a great personal pleasure to be able to contribute to this long overdue chapter in evolutionary science. In the meantime their silence speaks volumes as to their hypothesis, the most ridiculous and unsubstantiated in the history of science.

How do like them over ripe Ugli fruits?

Benjii
Benjii
14 years ago

Hey Teleologist, if you consider yourself a christian, then why are you saying that you hate PZ?

teleologist
14 years ago

Hey Teleologist, if you consider yourself a christian, then why are you saying that you hate PZ?

Benjii, why do you ask? Are you saying that Christian can’t hate? But in this case I was joking and PZ would prefer I hate him. He wears the perceived hatred as a medal of honor.

arc_legion
arc_legion
14 years ago

Well, Mr. Davison, consider me not an ideologue. In fact, I’m curious to know why PZ (and I, among others who think that science has a rightful place in directing our course of development as a society and as a species) stand compared to religious folk, whether religious or not. The use of terms like ‘heretic’, ‘devout believer’, ‘Darwinian religious beliefs’, ‘Darwinian priesthood’… I could go on. Science is not a religion – at least, not of the like that can be easily and directly compared to Judaism, Christianity, Paganism, etc. There are no rites and rituals, no songs reaffirming beliefs, no specific holidays devoted to specific causes of science (that I know of). Science is all about the specifics of one process – the evaluation of evidence, in the most careful and unassumptive nature available. You know that. Biology and evolution are of the like that they are almost impossible to uncouple anymore. Evolution, although always incomplete, does the best job of explaining things in terms of natural phenomena so far, and it’s work like that that saves human lives every day.

As for PZ, as an avid reader of his site, he does seem to wear religious folks distaste for him with some pride. I would guess he sees himself making some progress for our society away from the stone age, which too many fundamentalists of all sorts represent.

I’ll be interested to hear your response.

John A. Davison
John A. Davison
14 years ago

One great virtue of the PEH is that it tends to ameliorate hate when it proposes, as it does, that everything was determined. I sincerely believe that we are all victims of our predetermined fates. Some of us have been luckier than others. Richard Dawkins and P.Z. Meyers were among those not so fortunate and they don’t even realize it. It is sad but true.

uncapaddy
uncapaddy
14 years ago

teleologist,

that is not what i asked.

does one need to be a fundamentalist in order to be a christian?

piratemonkey
piratemonkey
14 years ago

John A. Davison,

If you see no invective in your post, you misunderstand the meaning of the word.

“Neo-Darwinism is nothing but mass hysteria perpetuated by generation after generation of academics who are genetically incapable of seeing that which is obvious to any objective observer.”

This is an absurd generalization, first-off.

Secondly, it is denunciatory and insulting, which by definition means that it’s invective. (“Genetically incapable?” C’mon.)

Sorry, but your protestation to the contrary is specious.

msf
msf
14 years ago

Hi, just dropped in from PZ’s blog. Looks like your posts average 0 comments, except when linked to from PZ. Guess your readers are either absent or not to interested in talking. After the link evaporates, your comments probably will too. Cheers!

EJP
EJP
14 years ago

It is the theists, not the atheists, that are in for a rude awakening. I am amazed that any of you are actually gullible enough to believe all the lies about evolution and darwinism.

Are you aware that Darwin’s theories are only a small part of evolutionary theory, and that many, many scientific studies are proving evolutionary theory as correct?

Believe what you want about the existence of a god – everyone is supposed to have the right to believe what they want – but don’t distort the facts to try and prove your own theories. If the facts supported ID, then great, but they don’t. PERIOD. The only discussions that are going on are related to discrediting other sciences, instead of proving ID. Why? because you CAN’T prove ID, because it is not true.

If you want ID to be a science, then subject its theories to all the scientific scrutiny that evolution is subjected to. Every single ID theory should be submitted for independent review. But you ID folks think that your theories should not be subjected to the same scruitiny. This is because if they were, they would be proven false and your whole movement would be crushed.

You explain this by saying that everyone is biased and that no one will look at your findings objectively. Well, that is wholly untrue. Controversial scientific theories are not always accepted right away. It takes time and intense study to validate new theories. All the ID theories that have been presented to the scientific community are shot down quickly due to basic logic and fact inconsistancies that they never get to the long-term validation.

I have an idea – IF intelligent design exists, then eventually science will have to find evidence of it, given the intense study that is devoted to these diciplines. IF there is a god, and IF this god created the universe and us, then evolution was the method that was chosen, because all the evidence points to that. IF this is the case, then somewhere in the sciences will be the connection between us and this alleged creator. Until then, study science, not myths and ghosts. What I predict will happen is that eventually we will find proof that there is no god, and that all this theistic superstition will fade away.

EJP
EJP
14 years ago

It is the theists, not the atheists, that are in for a rude awakening. I am amazed that any of you are actually gullible enough to believe all the lies about evolution and darwinism.

Are you aware that Darwin’s theories are only a small part of evolutionary theory, and that many, many scientific studies are proving evolutionary theory as correct?

Believe what you want about the existence of a god – everyone is supposed to have the right to believe what they want – but don’t distort the facts to try and prove your own theories. If the facts supported ID, then great, but they don’t. PERIOD. The only discussions that are going on are related to discrediting other sciences, instead of proving ID. Why? because you CAN’T prove ID, because it is not true.

If you want ID to be a science, then subject its theories to all the scientific scrutiny that evolution is subjected to. Every single ID theory should be submitted for independent review. But you ID folks think that your theories should not be subjected to the same scruitiny. This is because if they were, they would be proven false and your whole movement would be crushed.

You explain this by saying that everyone is biased and that no one will look at your findings objectively. Well, that is wholly untrue. Controversial scientific theories are not always accepted right away. It takes time and intense study to validate new theories. All the ID theories that have been presented to the scientific community are shot down quickly due to basic logic and fact inconsistancies that they never get to the long-term validation.

I have an idea – IF intelligent design exists, then eventually science will have to find evidence of it, given the intense study that is devoted to these diciplines. IF there is a god, and IF this god created the universe and us, then evolution was the method that was chosen, because all the evidence points to that. IF this is the case, then somewhere in the sciences will be the connection between us and this alleged creator. Until then, study science, not myths and ghosts. What I predict will happen is that eventually we will find proof that there is no god, and that all this theistic superstition will fade away.

EJP
EJP
14 years ago

It is the theists, not the atheists, that are in for a rude awakening. I am amazed that any of you are actually gullible enough to believe all the lies about evolution and darwinism.

Are you aware that Darwin’s theories are only a small part of evolutionary theory, and that many, many scientific studies are proving evolutionary theory as correct?

Believe what you want about the existence of a god – everyone is supposed to have the right to believe what they want – but don’t distort the facts to try and prove your own theories. If the facts supported ID, then great, but they don’t. PERIOD. The only discussions that are going on are related to discrediting other sciences, instead of proving ID. Why? because you CAN’T prove ID, because it is not true.

If you want ID to be a science, then subject its theories to all the scientific scrutiny that evolution is subjected to. Every single ID theory should be submitted for independent review. But you ID folks think that your theories should not be subjected to the same scruitiny. This is because if they were, they would be proven false and your whole movement would be crushed.

You explain this by saying that everyone is biased and that no one will look at your findings objectively. Well, that is wholly untrue. Controversial scientific theories are not always accepted right away. It takes time and intense study to validate new theories. All the ID theories that have been presented to the scientific community are shot down quickly due to basic logic and fact inconsistancies that they never get to the long-term validation.

I have an idea – IF intelligent design exists, then eventually science will have to find evidence of it, given the intense study that is devoted to these diciplines. IF there is a god, and IF this god created the universe and us, then evolution was the method that was chosen, because all the evidence points to that. IF this is the case, then somewhere in the sciences will be the connection between us and this alleged creator. Until then, study science, not myths and ghosts. What I predict will happen is that eventually we will find proof that there is no god, and that all this theistic superstition will fade away.

EJP
EJP
14 years ago

My browser screwed up as I was uploading this – I apologize for posting this three times. Please don’t triple the flames….

Beaming Visionary
14 years ago

“Please visit http://www.arn.org for a definition of Darwinism.”

Oh, well, now that an ID creationism site has provided a definition of “Darwinism” (a term no legitimate scientist uses), I guess I’d better get myself up to speed on this stuff.

Gentlemen, the ID “movement” is not setting the world on fire. It’s going down in flames, as it should. This is not owed to an athestic Darwinistic cabal endemic within the scientific community, but to a basic lack of merit. It amazed me how handily some can keep at bay the fact that ID creationism has offered no hypotheses or theories, no data, no observations — nothing except for the idiocy of Dembski and Behe (roundly marauded by real scientists) and a professed distaste for evolution and “secularism.”

Beaming Visionary
14 years ago

“The Darwinian mystics don’t have a leg to stand on and they are finally beginning to realize it.”

I notice that this and its variants (“Darwinism is teetering on the brink of destruction”; “Darwinism is in serious trouble”) are very popular in the ID community. This is an odd observation, as there’s nothing whatsoever to support it. Can you point to examples of evolutionary biologists evincing explicit doubt over natural selection, common descent with modification, and other elements of “Darwinism”? Because, see, as I understand it, the advent of molecular genetics has only served to provide resounding confirmation of the chief hypotheses of “Darwinism” — we see in DNA exactly what evolutionary theory predicts.

Perhaps you’re willfully misinterpreting their rejection of scientific claptrap as fear in order to allay cognitive dissonance? If so, don’t feel bad. It’s what humans do when they’re hurting.

free will
free will
14 years ago

We told you the earth was round, that the earth revolves around the sun, that diseases were the product of bacteria and viri, and many theist hooted the scientists down. Why should this be any different? The good news, however, is that the scientists forgive you. Though you are troubled by evolution science, we will contine to share our “antibiotics”. We just ask that you allow us to develop them in peace, as the contagions we fight evolve so quickly…

John A. Davison
John A. Davison
14 years ago

Beaming Visionary (what a misnomer)

You have just exposed yourself as abysmally ignorant of an enormous literature that has existed for a century and a half. I really don’t know what more to say so I won’t.

piratemonkey
piratemonkey
14 years ago

John A. Davison,

A) That’s another invective post… by dictionary definition.

B) Your above post had no content regarding this subject whatsoever.

C) If you are so well read, enighten us. I am a grad school professor and a biologist. I’m extremely curious to know about the “enormous literature” you speak of, because I am currently unaware of it.

Please, enlighten us, Professor.

Benjii
Benjii
14 years ago

Teleologist,

I’m sorry if I misunderstood you. I don’t want to be at loggerheads with you. I respect and like you sincerely.

EJP
EJP
14 years ago

Response to John A. Davison;

It is amazing that you would call someone ‘abysmally ignorant’ yet not make any attempt to justify the accusation. This is simply an attempt to convict by accusation.

People like you are a joke, and your actions mimic the current administrations defense tactics – attack the accuser, not the accusation. This is very prevalant when the accusation is true.

The truth is, you don’t know what to say because you don’t know anything. Otherwise, you would present evidence to dispute ‘Being Visionary’, rather than trying to attack him as a person. Since you have no evidence, you try to make people think that you have evidence; in poker it’s called ‘bluffing.’ Well, I just call you on your bluff and won the pot – unless you have evidence to dispute Mr. Visionary.

teleologist
14 years ago

You (I will use “you” as synonymous with PZ since you’ve equated yourself with him) are correct to say that religious Darwinism unlike Christianity is sinister. You have hijacked the pursuit of knowledge for the purpose of instituting your atheistic belief. You are a religious cult that twists the meaning of words and concepts to the destruction of science. Yes, I am taking a stand against your defilement of science from its pure empirical basis. Your constant attempt to besmirch Christians and erroneously linking our belief with the practice of science is transparently deceitful. Your incessant attack on Christianity only serves to demonstrate your religious agenda for atheistic supremacy and not science. Darwinian evolution is not even a theory. It takes a set of disparage data and force them together with a discombobulated just so story, that can’t be tested and make no verifiable predictions to its thesis.

Beyond the corruption of science, your caustic and violence fill rhetoric may very well indicate a deeper psychological disorder. Finally the rest of us absolutely believe that science has a vital role in our society, just not your brand of science that is a priori necessarily atheistic, and does not rely on empirical epistemology.

Darwinism has its own liturgy. It claims that Darwinian evolution is a fact as gravity is a fact. ID is Creationism. Materialism is all that there is because anything that is immaterial is a priori not scientific.

teleologist
14 years ago

uncapaddy,

Are you a fundamentalist or a christian? What’s the difference between a fundamentalist or a christian?

uncapaddy
uncapaddy
14 years ago

Teleologist,

My belief is irrelevant. However, your post at 2:09pm indicates that you believe that science and Christianity are antithetical. One might infer that a Christian cannot be a scientist and vice-versa.

Back to you….

teleologist
14 years ago

It is amazing that you would call someone ‘abysmally ignorant’ yet not make any attempt to justify the accusation.

EJP, you have to admit BV demonstrated his ignorance by making this assumption.

“regarding “Darwinism,” by which I assume you mean evolution in general”

Instead of doing a little research to learn what I or IDists mean by Darwinism, he makes an erroneous and unwarranted assumption. He further highlight his ignorance with this comment

Oh, well, now that an ID creationism site has provided a definition of “Darwinism” (a term no legitimate scientist uses), I guess I’d better get myself up to speed on this stuff.

Did he ask for a definition that he would agree with? No. He admits that he is not up to speed on ID stuff. This is evidence that Beaming Visionary is ignorant. This is further evidence that demonstrate the bankruptcy of Darwinism, with faithfuls like BV who is content to bloviate from ignorance.

teleologist
14 years ago

One might infer that a Christian cannot be a scientist

uncapaddy, there is no justification from my postings to make that inference. It is absolutely possible to be a Christian and a scientist.

My belief is irrelevant.

I don’t think it is. As you can see in this blog and elsewhere, many Darwinists have misconstrued Christianity, and have no apparent desire to be corrected. Further you draw a distinction between fundamentalist and Christians. It is important to know if you have any bias that might prevent you from an accurate understanding of Christianity, so a background of you belief is relevant. Finally, we can have a conversation but not an interrogation. I have no obligation to answer any of your questions when you will not answer mine.

free will
free will
14 years ago

Surely, Teleologist, you must concede that historically, religious authorities have condemned, ignored, and then ultimately conceded arguments to scientific principals over the years?

Beaming Visionary
14 years ago

As this thread demonstrates, the tenacity of wishful thinking rooted in spurious, untestable, and unsupported belief is remarkable. Here we have Mr. Davison, ignoring what 99.99% of competent biologists continually embrace, work within the framework of, advance, and verify directly and indirectly, and yammering about the alleged ignorance of anyone on board despite the fact that this includes, well, everyone with an intact mind. I guess, John, that the entire scientific community has been hoodwinked, and if they’d only listen to you and your novel insights, the would would be set right.

Then we have teleologist, unable to produce anything of substance and thus forced to focus on an assumption I made that in fact has nothing to do with the science at hand, but is justifiable based on induction alone — every ID creationist I have ever had the displeasure of listening to uses the terms “Darwinism” and “evolution” interchangeably.

Regardless, this, teleologist, along with your accusation that I did not diligently investigate your preferred definition of ID (a superfluous exercise, given that all ID is garbage) is known as a red herring. I suspect you’re intimately familiar with this particular fish. And the fact that no competent scientist uses the term “Darwinism” in *any* context remains germane.

So John, you’ve indicted a rather large body of work, as has teleologist, with his wishful-thinking-based (and, I am sure, wholly confident) claim that Darwinian principles are “..based entirely on irreproducible fairy tales.” Rather than spew and fume and go to great and irrelevant lengths to state that we evolutionists just don’t see the light because we’re too busy worshipping at the dark altar of Darwinism, why not serve up some support for this crap? I suppose the reason you focus on non-issues might just be the fact that you don’t have any facts, but I don’t want to make any more radical assumptions.)