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. 😀

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. 😀

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

  130 Responses to “PZ Myers A Proud Heretic of Science”

  1. 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.

  2. Change ‘forge’ with ‘Forgo’.

  3. 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.

  4. 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? 😀 I love it. You too have a way with words Prof. I am embarrassed to confess that sometimes I find his shtick quite entertaining.

  5. 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?

  6. 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?

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

  8. BRAVO! Excellent comment and ditto.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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!

  13. John

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

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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. 😀

  17. 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.

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. “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?

  21. 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.

  22. 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.

  23. 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?

  24. 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.

  25. 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?

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

  27. 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.

  28. 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.

  29. 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.

  30. teleologist,

    that is not what i asked.

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

  31. 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.

  32. 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!

  33. 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.

  34. 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.

  35. 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.

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

  37. “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.”

  38. “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.

  39. 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…

  40. 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.

  41. 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.

  42. Teleologist,

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

  43. 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.

  44. 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.

  45. uncapaddy,

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

  46. 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….

  47. 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.

  48. 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.

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

  50. 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.)

  51. 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,

    Beaming Visionary’s continues to demonstrate his extravagant ignorance. So BV is now suggesting that Darwinism, which he assumes, I mean evolution in general has nothing to do with science? If he is ignorant of a term like Darwinism why bother going any further. Further, this must have escape BV, if he wants to focus on what I or other IDist say about the philosophy, method, and evidence of science, there are many posts on this blog where he can make his comments. He chose this particular OP to demonstrate his ignorance, which is not focus on these other aspects of science. To claim that there is no substance is further demonstration of that ignorance. He is also uncouth. His only apparent agenda here is to rant and rail against people who criticize his religious beliefs.

  52. BV

    It is Dr. Davison and has been for 51 years. Just as you Darwinian mysics have relegated me and all my sources to oblivion, I have just relegated you and all your fellow travelers to the same fate. You bore me to tears.

  53. 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.

    Ignorance must be bliss because Beaming Visionary seems to wallow in it. If it is superfluous why not state what I mean correctly?

    Beaming Visionary still fails to comprehend his mistake. His erroneous assumption was not about what he thinks Darwinism means. It was not even about what he or other Darwinist accept as a legitimate term. It was about his ignorant and erroneous assumption of what he thought the term means to me.

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

  54. “If he is ignorant of a term like Darwinism…”

    I know what it means. Unlike many of your ilk, I know that it’s not synonymous with evolution, and I also know that it’s merely a tool used by old-school creationists and ID creationists to hammer away in toddler-tantrum fashion at matters regarding the natural world that trouble them deeply because it upsets their godly apple cart. But if it consoles you to pretend I can’t keep these terms, their meanings and their infusion into the vernacular straight, I won’t stand in the way.

    I also think it’s sweet that DOCTOR Davison has relegated the rest of the scientific community to oblivion, thereby exacting his revenge on a cruel and addled bunch. I’m sure we’ll all be feeling the shock waves soon.

    But forget that — I think I’d be better served by adopting your approach.

    “Boring! Ignorant! Bad Darwin, bad! Ignorance! You not know what we science think, ignoramus! Me scientist of long standing, you deluded Darwin worshipper! You all go down flaming soon, you watch! IGNORANT!”

    I think I’ve captured the spirit of this thing. Time to return to the real world, I believe. Do society a favor and fill those Haldol prescriptions.

  55. Well, Teleologist (and John), you seem to have rattled some cages!!!

  56. free will,

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

    I am not sure what your point is. Are you suggesting that because Darwinists have engaged in fraud that is sufficient to invalidate it as science? I don’t think so. Science even in antiquity has always attempted to explain what was observed. Darwinism is only a recent phenomenon that deviates from empirical science and establish facts that aren’t verifiable or observable.

  57. Well, Teleologist (and John), you seem to have rattled some cages

    LOL! I must be a masochist for allowing this to go on. For the good of the blog I probably should put an end to this soon. 😀

  58. I know what it means.

    LOL! One more time Tenebrous Visionary.

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

    Go ahead, admit your ignorance Tenebrous Visionary, truth is liberating. 😀

  59. John A. Davison,

    Again, for a third time, you make an invective post.

    Are you still going to claim you don’t?

    Isn’t it amazing that those who most wear their religion on their sleeve are the first to name-call and then lie about it?

    The hypocrisy of some religious people is unbelievable.

    I’m glad you are doctor, Dr. Davison… I teach people to be doctors.

    I’m waiting for you to educate me, Professor. Where is this “enormous literature” you speak of? You didn’t mention _any_ of it in your last post. Why not? Afraid of a real argument with someone even more educated than you?

  60. piratemonkey,

    Isn’t it amazing that those who most wear their religion on their sleeve are the first to name-call and then lie about it?

    The hypocrisy of some religious people is unbelievable.

    Dr. Davison is not religious. Are you addressing your remarks toward him?

  61. teleologist,

    I am just trying to get a feel for the working assumptions used in this blog.

    To answer though: I use the common definitions of “Christian” and “Fundamentalist”, to wit:

    Christian: one who has confessed that Jesus Christ is his lord and savior.

    Fundamentalist: (in this context) a Christian who believes that the Bible is literally true, including the six-day creation.

    Furthermore, fundamentalism (again, in this context) is a subset of Christianity.

    So. Does one need to be, in your view, a fundamentalist in order to be a Christian? In other words, do you agree with the above definitions?

  62. Teleologist,

    I inferred a belief on your part that a Christian cannot be a scientist when you said, “Your constant attempt to besmirch Christians and erroneously linking our belief with the practice of science is transparently deceitful.”

    Thank you for clarifying.

  63. I forgot to answer the other part of teleologist’s question:

    I am Christian. I trained as a scientist. I am an evolutionist, an atomist, Einsteinist, Newtonist, Quantumist, etc-ist.

  64. One last time, Doc Davison. I believe I’ve clarified this to the satisfaction of all but the most obsequious and inattentive, but here goes: I am fully aware that “Darwinism” as typically defined is not synonymous with evolution. In fact, it is this awareness that permits me to highlight this mistaken conflation when others perpetrate it. Perhaps you and teleoligist understand the difference, but surely you are aware that many others — not only within the ID community but in the mainstream media and in society at large — routinely use the terms interchangeably.

    Here’s an analogy for you. Assume I were addressing a group of people assumed for whatever statistically viable reason to be Muslims, but who were in fact Christians. If I made the statement, “let’s discuss your supreme being, which presumably is called Allah,” this would surely draw guffaws of indignation. However, this in no way implies that I can’t distinguish one mythical skygod from another.

    A completely trivial point, but one which seems especially slippery to you.

  65. Forgive me for returning, but so far I have yet to have an answer to the question, Mr. Davison, as to why there are constant comparisons between Evolutionary Theory and the religion of your choice – again, they have little in common.

    I’d also like to ask, what is it about evolution that’s so bad – the fact there are things we don’t know? What about evolution isn’t verifiable or observable, and how is this affecting the situation? Because, so far, with zero verification or observation as you might infer, we have entire medical systems in place to heal the sick and prevent the loss of human life and livelihood. That’s some incredible luck for evolution to be correct, isn’t it? Fill me in.

  66. Beaming Visionary said:

    And the fact that no competent scientist uses the term “Darwinism” in any context remains germane.

    This surprisingly harsh indictment of the competence of such scientists as Dawkins, Ruse, Miller (a devout Catholic and a devout Darwinist) and Margulis (who admits with guilt that she is not a neo-Darwinist, but quickly reaffirms that she is a Darwinist) might be expected from a creationist or IDist, but is very surprising from an admitted evolutionist.

  67. Piratemonkey sees religion on Doctor Davison’s sleeve, but I would wager is completely unable to describe what religion that might be.

    Isn’t it amazing that those who most wear their religion on their sleeve are the first to name-call and then lie about it?

  68. arc legion, to John A. Davison:

    I’d also like to ask, what is it about evolution that’s so bad

    Once again, Dr. Davison is a published evolutionist.

  69. Daron, let me clarify. Obviously, like most here presumably have (there I go again with my assumptions), I have read much if not most of Dawkins’ work and am aware that he and other prominent evolutionists use the term, primarily in a historical rather than an explanatory or defining context. So I recant my statement as written.

    What I should have written is that contemporary evolutionists do not use the term “Darwinism” to refer to the whole of evolution, nor do they refer to themselves or their colleagues primarily as “Darwinists.” This is a practiced means of forestalling the curiously persistent notion that Darwin’s work has undergone no refinements or additions in the past 150 years; odd indeed would be the discipline established and wholly codified by a single man, with those following in his footsteps serving only to carry his unique and immalleable message.

    Perhaps I have been sensitized by the manner in which the Discovery Institute and various other creationist groups use the term (both erroneously and as a slur). That’s what I was getting at.

  70. Hi Beaming Visionary,
    Thanks for your clarification, and the respectful tone of your last comment.
    I don’t know what you mean “primarily”, but the scientists I named certainly refer to themselves (not merely in a historical context but in the present) as Darwinists, and make no apologies about it. I say this, and name these four, because I have heard or read exactly that from them. I don’t know or recall how many others have or do use the term in a similar manner, but I suspect my list is far from exhaustive.

    What I should have written is that contemporary evolutionists do not use the term “Darwinism” to refer to the whole of evolution

    I guess you have run into some who do this.
    When you suggested that it was being used in that manner on this thread you were corrected immediately.
    But then you repeated that “Darwinism” was used by no “legitimate scientist”, then no “competent scientist” and only by “old-school creationists and ID-creationists (sic)”. This after being told several times that nobody here meant for ” “Darwinism” to refer to the whole of evolution”.

    I understand being overly-sensitized to the kinds of demeaning and disrespectful remarks made and intended by ‘debaters’ on blogs – I know I certainly have been, and often jump to the wrong conclusions. But when you enter a thread in the manner that you did you do very little improve the situation.

  71. It is your blog Teleologist. If you want to turn it over to a bunch of demonstrated illiterates that is fine with me. I have no intention of responding to those that have just proved exactly that. Enjoy.

    “You can lead a man to the literature but you can’t make him read it.”

    The fact remains that neo-Darwinism in all its many guises is the most failed pseudo-scientific invention ever conceived by the human imagination. It is far more ridiculous than the Phlogiston of Chemstry and the Ether of Physics.

    I recommend some of your more recent visitors drop in at Scott L. Page’s new blog:

    all-too-common-dissent.blogspot.com/

    where I am sure they will be warmly received. I tried to leave a message there but of course it was not allowed.

    I predict big things for Page’s blog just as successful as FringeSciences where he also hangs out and spews his venom.

  72. I am just trying to get a feel for the working assumptions used in this blog.
    To answer though: I use the common definitions of “Christian” and “Fundamentalist” , to wit:
    Christian: one who has confessed that Jesus Christ is his lord and savior.
    Fundamentalist: (in this context) a Christian who believes that the Bible is literally true, including the six-day creation.
    Furthermore, fundamentalism (again, in this context) is a subset of Christianity.
    So. Does one need to be, in your view, a fundamentalist in order to be a Christian? In other words, do you agree with the above definitions?

    uncapaddy, thank you for your definition. Let me try to answer your questions. The purpose of this blog is to discuss subjects related to intelligent design. Part of that discussion naturally involves the failure of the theory of evolution to explain certain aspects of biotic reality. Just as a part of the rise of modern chemistry, microbiology and bacteriology involved the falsification of spontaneous generation, the rise of ID include the falsification of Darwinian evolution.

    Religion should not have been in this discussion at all. The problem is the incessant desire drag religion into this discussion. Finally you have people professing to be Christians and profess allegiance to Darwinian evolution. When this happens then their profess faith is also opened for criticism.

    By definition a Christian is one who believes he/she is a sinner and Jesus Christ as God and Savior for the atonement of our sins. Before I go on there is an inseparable implication to this faith. Regardless of your theological persuasion, the inseparable implication is that we (Christians) believe that God Created. God created the universe, which includes all observed biotic reality.

    You mentioned that fundamentalists are Biblical literalists. I don’t know what you mean by that, but there is a lot of misunderstanding what that means also. I consider myself a Biblical literalist. A Biblical literalist is someone who believes in the historical and grammatical interpretation of the Bible. This is the same method used to interpret any written text including modern text. It is sometimes called the classical method because it was formalize around the time of the reformation. I think the roots of which could be traced back to the early church fathers. This method uses lower textual criticism to determine the authenticity of the text, its lexical meaning, historical, cultural, literary context and the archaeological context. It would recognize symbolism and figures of speech. (In case you are wondering, the Biblical literal understanding of Genesis does not necessarily mean 24hr creation days. I fully accept the Earth is 4.5by old and the universe is 15by old)

    Now let me define Darwinian evolution. Within the theory of evolution the hypothetical mechanisms for changes come and go, but the core premise of evolution has not change since Darwin. That is naturalism. The theory of evolution posits that all biotic reality can be derived by an unguided and purposeless random change by purely naturalistic means.

    Now I am ready to answer your question, does one need to be a fundamentalist and be a Christian? If you mean a fundamentalist as being a literalist as I’ve defined it above, then no. I think it is a vitally important point of contention but that is not the test for Christianity.

    However, I don’t want to leave people with the wrong impression. Darwinian evolution is antithetical to Christianity; therefore it is impossible to be a Christian and a Darwinist. People like PZ, Dawkins, Forrest and many others recognizes this, I am not making news here. I have posted this often in this blog but let me post it again.

    Provine’s metaphysics
    Not so for William Provine. His answer is clear: there is nothing out there, we die in the most definitive sense of the word, and there is no point in even asking the question of the ultimate meaning of life. Where does he get this conclusion? From the Darwinian theory of evolution by descent with modification. According to Provine, not only there is no evidence for anything beyond matter, but the whole essence of evolutionary change should tell us that it is irrational to even look for it.

    Daniel Dennett:
    If they said that the theory of evolution in no way conflicts with the existence of a divine creator, then I must say that I find that claim to be disingenuous. The theory of evolution demolishes the best reason anyone has ever suggested for believing in a divine creator.

    Ken Miller ” The existence of a supreme being simply is not a scientific question. A supreme being stands outside of nature. Science is a naturalistic process and can only answer questions about what is inside nature. Beyond that it’s a matter of personal belief.”

    Barbara Forrest “To introduce a supernatural or transcendental cause within science is to depart from naturalistic explanations. On this ground, to invoke an intelligent designer or creator is inadmissible”

    Darwinian evolution rules out any role by God a priori. There is no way a Christian can justify this atheistic belief, regardless of their theological persuasion.

    Finally let me bring this back to the purpose of this blog. It is not about the religious beliefs of Darwinists or Christians. It is about the purity of science, which is empirically based. Science should be about what is observable and verifiable. The Darwinian orthodoxy is heretical because people like PZ have strayed away from pure empirical science. They have proposed explanations for certain artifacts of biotic reality that cannot be empirically proven. They further assert that their theory is nevertheless a fact waiting for a mechanism. They further compound their heresy by refusing to allow empirical research for another hypothesis.

  73. Teleologist, you said

    Science should be about what is observable and verifiable.

    Science is about what is observable and verifiable; anything else is not Science.

    You go on to say

    The Darwinian orthodoxy is heretical because people like PZ have strayed away from pure empirical science.

    Surely you must permit anyone to express an opinion an any subject (within the limits of civilised behaviour) With the exception of Michael Behe, many ID proponents are happy to express opinions well beyond their field of expertise.

    You say

    They have proposed explanations for certain artifacts of biotic reality that cannot be empirically proven.

    Proposing hypotheses is the starting point for scientific research. Then one looks for evidence. You can’t prove a theory, only disprove it. That is why it is much harder for ID proponents to present any form of testable hypothesis than to attack gaps in evolutionary theory.

    You say

    They further assert that their theory is nevertheless a fact waiting for a mechanism.

    No. I think they believe they have their mechanism; RM + NS.

    You say

    They further compound their heresy by refusing to allow empirical research for another hypothesis.

    The barriers to research in ID are not financial, or are any erected by evil Darwinists. The Discovery Institute, for example, has had millions of dollars donated which it could have used for research instead of PR. The barrier is that there is no testable hypothesis of ID that would form the basis of scientific research.

  74. Teleologist,

    you said, “Darwinian evolution rules out any role by God a priori.”

    So far in my studies I have not found that evolution rules out God. However, since the theory follows “methodological naturalism” it assumes that there is no god/God. After all, an effectively infinite being simultaneously present at all points in time and space is by definition immesurable.

    Is methodological naturalism what you mean by “atheistic” in this context?

    If so, then we cannot be Christians and “believe” in the atomic theory, quantum theory, mathematical theory, gravitational theory, etc, because they, like evolutionary theory, do not invoke God.

    Then again, St. Thomas Aquinas said “All truth is God’s truth”. Since evolutionary theory is the best we have at this point (until we get replicable experiments that will falsify it), can not a Christian concede that evolution is the means by which God works?

  75. Hi uncapaddy,

    You switched from addressing “Darwinian evolution” in your last comment to just “evolution” as you progressed.

    I think that a Christian could find it entirely plausible that God works through evolution.

    This purposeful plan would, by definition, be contrary to the theory of evolution based upon ‘blind, purposeless chance or luck’.

    Even God can’t use purposelessness to attain a purposeful result.

  76. To characterize the Prescribed Evoluitionary Hypothesis (PEH) as untestable is without foundation. The Semi-meiotic Hypothesis (SMH) which I introduced in 1984 is eminently testable with suitable material. It is the mechanism for the realease of the “prescribed” information. The SMH and PEH are intimately related aspects of the same proposal. Furthermore, everything we are now learning from chromosome structure and function indicates that there has never been any role for the environment in any aspect of organic evolution, just as Schindewolf anticipated 55 years ago. It, like ontogeny, has been entirely emergent, front-loaded and independent of the environment beyond that of providing a suitable milieu for its expression, a fresh water pond for the amphibian and a uterus for the mammal.

    Once again Alan Fox, like the good propagandist and documented liar that he has proven to be, has introduced another lie whren he claims there is no testable hypothesis. It is called “The Big Lie Technique.” The most testable hypothesis imaginable has been that of Darwinian mysticism and it has failed absolutely every attempt to find support in either the experimental laboratory or in the undeniable testimony of the fossil record.

    The PEH does not even require a test as it is being demonstrated every day in the annals of the peer reviewed scientific literature, a literature being carefully ignored by the Darwinian atheist ideologues. I refer you to my 2005 paper for the tip of the iceberg of the pertinent literature, a literature that grows by leaps and bounds.

    Incidentally, there is no evolutionary theory, only failed and as yet untested hypotheses. Theories sensu strictu are verified hypotheses. I have a paper to that effect in the forthcoming issue of Rivista di Biologia.

    How do you like them candied yams?

  77. John says

    Once again Alan Fox, like the good propagandist and documented liar that he has proven to be, has introduced another lie whren he claims there is no testable hypothesis. It is called “The Big Lie Technique.”

    If you can show me where I have stated something demonstrably untrue whilst knowing it to be false, I will gladly withdraw it and apologise. I would really prefer you to support your slur with at least one example.

    The Semi-meiotic Hypothesis (SMH) which I introduced in 1984 is eminently testable with suitable material.

    Yet in the intervening 22 years, no-one has tried to carry out this work ( which the Professor never seems to spell out in detail), not even Professor Davison, with at least for some of that time the lab facilities at Vermont University available.

  78. Daron,

    Actually, by using “Darwinian” as an adjective, teleologist (and others) make Darwinian Evolution (whatever that is) a subset of evolution. Hence, there was no switch in my post.

    Define puroseful and purposeless in terms of evolution.

  79. Okay, Daron, I’m aware of Mr. Davison’s claims. Simply because I’m not extensively read does not mean I haven’t read what’s been stated repeatedly (and explicitly) on these boards.

    And since Mr. Davison seems unwilling to entertain the notion of a few questions (which, with his assumed ‘literacy’ he should certainly have been able to press out a few references with little effort), so I’m outta here. BTW, teleologist, I could be wrong, but the trackback at the bottom should be URL and not URI, not? Meh.

  80. If Alan Fox were not a voluntary illiterate he would know very well why I was unable to test the Semi-meiotic Hypothesis because I have explained it many times on several forums. I also have many published papers and a 55 page unpublished Manifesto which would answer any question Alan Fox has or is about to ask. He chooses to pretend that I have never published my findings in refereed journals simply because it suits his despicable purposes which are invariably to defame, denegrate and ridicule. He is a caricature of the entire bunch at Panda’s Thumb, incapable of rational discussion, victimized by ideological bigotry and abysmally ignorant of a century and a half of literature that has discredited every aspect of the Darwinian fairy tale. Why Teleologist tolerates this creature is beyond me.

    To see the real Alan Fox go to Panda’s Thumb, find its search window and type in “Alan Fox.” You will be rewarded with the real Alan Fox in all his venomous, mindless, hateful and especially ignorant glory. Enjoy it as I have. He is perfect proof of a prescribed congenital condition for which there is no cure. He is homozygous (AADDII) at the Atheist, Darwinian, Ignoramus loci. I love it so!

  81. For anyone wishing to see the real Alan Fox exposed at PT, they may find this link useful.

  82. Incidentally arc legion, whoever that really is and of course we will never know, it is Dr. Davison not Mr. Davison and has been for over a half century. I have no respect for those who hide their identity while they carelessly cast aspersions. That precedent should never have been established for internet communication. It only invites license to abuse and autogratify otherwise unfulfilled second rate egos. Have a nice day. whoever you are.

    “You can lead a man to the literature but you can’t make him read or comprehend it.”
    Dr. John A. Davison

  83. Alan ,

    Surely you must permit anyone to express an opinion an any subject (within the limits of civilised behaviour) With the exception of Michael Behe, many ID proponents are happy to express opinions well beyond their field of expertise.

    I am not sure what you are getting at. I have never (to the best of memory) limited free speech. Nevertheless, science is what it is, empirical.

    Proposing hypotheses is the starting point for scientific research. Then one looks for evidence. You can’t prove a theory, only disprove it. That is why it is much harder for ID proponents to present any form of testable hypothesis than to attack gaps in evolutionary theory.

    First please remember what I said about equal footing between hypothesis. Second a theory needs to be proved in the scientific sense. A proven theory does not mean that it is the absolute truth for all eternity, as you said it can be falsified.

    No. I think they believe they have their mechanism; RM + NS.

    There is no mechanism for certain IC features. There is no mechanism for OOL. (I know it is irrelevant for evolution. This is a cop out because every evolutionist assumes that the OOL is a naturalistic process on the basis of naturalism) Finally there was no working mechanism for novel features or else Carroll would not have said what he claims from evo-devo.

    The barriers to research in ID are not financial, or are any erected by evil Darwinists. The Discovery Institute, for example, has had millions of dollars donated which it could have used for research instead of PR. The barrier is that there is no testable hypothesis of ID that would form the basis of scientific research.

    1. ID deserves funding regardless how much they might have had. 2. I don’t know how much they really had but I doubt that it was enough to build a leading edge lab. I wonder those who would suggest that ID has enough money for research, would they also agree that embryonic stem cell research also has enough money?

  84. uncapaddy, I would appreciate you give a point by point response as I have done.

    So far in my studies I have not found that evolution rules out God.

    So do you dispute the statements that I’ve quoted from Miller, Forrest and the rest?

    However, since the theory follows “methodological naturalism” it assumes that there is no god/God.

    First methodological naturalism is not a necessity of science. Pure science is about observation and experimentation period. It cannot assume that there is no God. It also should not assume God.

    After all, an effectively infinite being simultaneously present at all points in time and space is by definition immesurable.

    Is this some sort of New Age god. If you are a Christian then you know that the Christian God is immanently involved with His Creation. The Acts of God is observable and a matter of historical record. Tell me, are you saying that you are a Christian based solely on blind faith?

    Is methodological naturalism what you mean by “atheistic” in this context?

    There are some distinction between the two terms but in general an atheist assumes MN.

    If so, then we cannot be Christians and “believe” in the atomic theory, quantum theory, mathematical theory, gravitational theory, etc, because they, like evolutionary theory, do not invoke God.

    You are conflating and obfuscating too much. First ID and I have never said it is necessary to invoke God into any of these theories. However, do some theories have metaphysical implications? Sure, the Big Bang has huge implications, the atomic, quantum and gravitational theories has an anthropic implication. Darwinian evolution like theism is an implication derived from the scientific data. It is not the science itself.

    Second all the theories above except evolution is directly predictable and testable, not so with evolution.

    Then again, St. Thomas Aquinas said “All truth is God’s truth” .

    This is a gross distortion of what Aquinas meant. Aquinas was referring to nature demonstrates the glory of God and the evidence for God is written not only in Scripture but in Nature. He is an IDist.

    Since evolutionary theory is the best we have at this point (until we get replicable experiments that will falsify it),

    Why is evolution the only privilege theory that we can assume that it is true until proven false? Evolution should prove itself as a working theory first. At which point we can accept the evolutionary theory as provisional like all other working theory until it is falsified. Every working scientist understands this.

    can not a Christian concede that evolution is the means by which God works?

    Please explain to me how God could possibly have used evolution in your definition of science and epistemology.

  85. Actually, by using “Darwinian” as an adjective, teleologist (and others) make Darwinian Evolution (whatever that is) a subset of evolution. Hence, there was no switch in my post.

    ID is not the only ones using “Darwinian evolution” . Many staunch evolutionary theory advocates also use this term; Gould, Eldridge, Dennett, and Ruse come to mind. They are not just using it historical terms either. Evolution advocates also use terms like neo-Darwinism, Darwinist and Darwinism are all part of the evolutionary vocabulary.

    It is a general assumption that people who visit these ID/evolution blogs have some understanding regarding the Theory of Evolution. I have explained partly what I mean by “Darwinian evolution” . I explicitly use this term to preempt any obfuscation by Darwinists when discussing ToE (although it never works :)).

  86. Teleologist

    Excuse me but there is as yet no “theory of evolution.” only a couple of thoroughly failed hypotheses, Darwinism and Lamarckism. As you know I have introduced a new hypothesis which remains in acord with everything we really know about the mechanism for organic evolution. It is called the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. It is being supported as we correspond by laboratories all over the world. So far it remains viable as the best explanation for organic evolution of which I am aware.

  87. Excuse me but there is as yet no “theory of evolution.” only a couple of thoroughly failed hypotheses, Darwinism and Lamarckism.

    I know John. I only use it as a courtesy to the Darwinists for what they want to hear. 🙂

  88. teleologist,

    i will try to give point-by-point per your request, but be warned: there is a reason why my church and my union will not let me record meetings…. 😉

  89. (I came back, go ahead and call me on it) Mr. Davison, I’ll call you doctor when I feel like it, and I don’t. Opting not to call you Doctor, at best, only wounds your pride – it is by no means an aspersion (unless you think you’re god and it’s making you cry – then maybe). Second, a simple search of the pseudonym would have brought up at least a half-dozen Google results that could tell you a hell of a lot about me. You go on to demand similar actions from Alan Fox, without taking them yourself. Yes, that is an attack (and now you have aspersion). So please stop.

  90. arc_legion, you are off topic. Cut it out so I don’t have to.

  91. arc legion

    At 78 I pretty much do whatever I feel like sonny. Where may I find your papers or don’t you have any? You bore me because you contribute nothing to the substance of this forum. I find you and all the hundreds of others just like you wonderful examples of the PEH, poor souls doomed (“prescribed”) to remain eternally ignorant. I love it so! Thanks for posting.

  92. Actually, I consider questions to be very substantial – and answers substancially moreso. I’m reading your manifesto on and off again as we type – but I I ask for answers, even indicators, and you leave me to sort through 130 years of writing, the great majority of which will repeat much of what PEH has been saying, you aren’t giving your argument any substance, and you definitely aren’t contributing to the discussion either. Like it or not, your posts DO fit the definition of invective, and attacking people isn’t in good taste – for either of a 78 year old man or a Professor, Emeritus. Don’t presume to lecture me on the conduct of a discussion.

  93. Tele, I’m holding him pound for pound – I’m asking questions and seeking answers, and I’m getting attacked for it. I don’t appreciate being implied as ignorant or ill-read, and in the interest of keeping respectfulness in the messageboard all I’m asking for are simple answers to simple questions.

  94. arc_legion, ask all the questions that you want, others are under no obligation to answer. Watch your language and keep it civil. Carry on.

  95. The Manifesto is 6 years out of date and my home page was frozen by the University in 2000 when I resigned from UVM. I recommend arc legion go to my most recent paper which is available at brainstorms – “A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis.” It has been published and is now for eternity on the shelves of the world’s libraries as well. I doubt he has even read it as he presents no indication that he has. Neither have Alan Fox or edarrell apparently because none of them have referred in any way to the content of that publication or to the evidence it presents supporting the PEH. Instead I am bombarded with invective and cynical innuendo none of which has any bearing on the subject at hand which is a new hypothesis to explain organic evolution. All this ideologically inspitred bluster is water off this old duck’s back.

    I love it so!

  96. Teleologist, you said

    I have never (to the best of memory) limited free speech.

    Then I compliment you. I, in turn, accept that there are limits to free speech on any blogsite, gratuitous insult, endless off-topic repetition etc. What irritates me most is the very often seen swift descent into playground name-calling.

    You mention Carroll. Excuse my ignorance but who he/she? Google doesn’t help. There are many Carrolls.

    You say

    Second a theory needs to be proved in the scientific sense. A proven theory does not mean that it is the absolute truth for all eternity, as you said it can be falsified.

    As I said, one cannot prove a scientific theory; it stands until disproven. I can never disprove at least one crop circle was created supernaturally, as the evidence no longer exists if the incident of that episode was not recorded in some way. This is so for all scientific theories. This is why OOL theories are so unsatisfactory, as they can (at the moment anyway) only be conjecture.

    You say

    I don’t know how much they really had

    20 million dollars is a figure that is proposed for what has gone into the Discovery Institute coffers. Out of curiosity, are you in favour of stem-cell research?

  97. A past Intelligent Design and accordingly one or more designers requires no documentation as it is obvious to any rational objective observer of either the animate or inanimate world.

    “However that may be, the existence of internal factors affecting evolution has to be accepted by any objective mind…”
    Pierre Grasse, Evolution of Living Animals, page 209

    So much for the objectivity and rationality of the congenital Darwinian mind of which Alan Fox represents the perfect example.

  98. arc legion
    You give me great joy, even thigh-slapping hilarity. Got that? Write that down.

  99. John, how do you think life began?

  100. Benji

    No-one knows and I suspect no-one ever will, unless extra-terrestrial life is discovered which arose independently as that would increase the scope for research enormously. So, at the moment, we are all free to speculate wildly.

    BTW, is it intended that no new commenters are to be allowed to register at Uncommon Descent, and, if so, won’t that make it a rather boring forum.

  101. Darwinians never speculate as they aready have all the answers. Evolution has resulted from chance and intelligence was an evolutionary accident. If you don’t believe it just ask Stephen Jay Gould or Alan Fox or any other Darwinian mystic.

  102. I, in turn, accept that there are limits to free speech on any blogsite,

    Alright Alan, if you put it that way. 🙂 I don’t consider this censorship. Blogs, in a sense, are private properties and as such are subject to their own rules. It is like going into someone else’s house. There are many other avenues for one to exercise free speech.

    You mention Carroll

    Sean Carroll is the prof. of genetics at UW.

  103. I recommend all visit the “Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis” thread at “brainstorms” where David Hagen has just told off Alan Fox in a most devastating and accordingly delightful message. You will discover that I am not the only one in the world that has Alan fox pegged as the ignorant, bigoted Darwinian troublemaker that he so obviously is.

    Read and enjoy.

  104. I also recommend all visit Fringe Sciences where Scott L. Page has just admitted that he would not let me post on his new blog. He then described me as “a senile old jackass.” Isn’t that charming? Read and enjoy as I do. I am having the time of my life.

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

  105. How are you doing Alan baby?

  106. Great’ John.

    Just looking out my C. S. Lewis books.

    BTW has any living scientist actually commented, favourably or otherwise, on your hypotheses?

  107. Rather exactly the same number that commented on Mendel’s paper between 1868 and 1899. But look what happened in 1900. All hell broke loose. If I am such a loony tune surely some Darwinian somewhere would alert the world in hard copy don’t you think. Of course you don’t think as you have already established that. You are one of my greatest allies and don’t even realize it.
    Neither do P.Z. Meyers, Wesley Elsberry, Scott L. Page, edarrell amd a host of other mouthy, arrogant, atheist, Darwinian zealots who haven’t got the common sense to keep their traps shut. The vast majority, indeed all, of the professional Darwinians actually do keep silent for exactly the reasons I have so often explained. Why don’t you be the first to warn the world in a refereed journal? Nobody else has. Surely someone with your knowledge and influence could find a publisher somewhere willing to supprt such a venture. Get cracking little man. Fat chance I say. Crawl back to Panda’s Thumb and send out another goon. It seems you are through at “brainstorms.” It sure took long enough. Why you are tolerated here boggles my mind. Also be sure to keep exposing yourself at my blog. You are the best thing that ever happened to me and to my hypothesis.

    I love it so.

  108. Rather exactly the same number that commented on Mendel’s paper between 1868 and 1899.

    I take it that’s a No, then, Professor.

    It seems Dr (of what BTW, no trace of him on the web) Hagen has cancelled my registration at ISCID. That should leave you free to further explain your hypotheses without distraction.

  109. Take a hint you homozygous, illiterate troublemaker before you are banned here too. God knows you should be. Here, as everywhere else, you have never contributed a scinitalla of meaningful commentary on any subject. All you can do is denigrate some of the finest minds of two centuries. You are pathetic. By your own admission you chose not to pursue a career in science and you have proven that time and time again.

    If you have been banned at “brainstorms,” it was not Hagen’s decision. It was most probably Micah Sparacio’s. Go slinking back to Elsberry’s Alamo where you have always belonged.

    Teleologist, if anyone ever deserved to be banned it is Alan Fox. I hope you will give it some serious consideration.

  110. I retract my previous post. It seems I was being blocked by an auto spam protection system.

  111. Teleologist, if anyone ever deserved to be banned it is Alan Fox. I hope you will give it some serious consideration.

    John, I try to play it fast and loose. I figure people will eventually work the problem out among themselves. Trust me, I am keeping my eye on this exchange and elsewhere.

    This is not brainstorm. I am much more lax with the rules. I allow most people to say their piece even when it is less complimentary of myself. Make no mistake I am biased toward ID contributors. This is only fair to counterbalance the Darwinian bias elsewhere. 🙂 Unlike Darwinists, I am honest enough to acknowledge it. 😀

  112. Teleologist

    OK got him, and you wrote

    Finally there was no working mechanism for novel features or else Carroll would not have said what he claims from evo-devo.

    I just quickly checked Pub-Med abstracts, but didn’t spot anything on evo-devo. Perhaps you could point me to it.

    BTW, unless I’ve missed a post elsewhere, I haven’t seen a response from you on whether some crop circles were created other than by people.

  113. Alan,

    but didn’t spot anything on evo-devo.


    evo-devo

    I haven’t seen a response from you on whether some crop circles were created other than by people.

    crop circle You are still obfuscating. Apply the same argument that Darwinists make against ID, how do you infer design without identifying the designers? You can’t claim human imitation of crop circles from unknown designers as evidence that all crop circles were design. Otherwise you must accept the same argument from ID. If we can design by imitating biological organisms, that is evidence of design. Do you understand the equivalence of the argument?

  114. Teleologist

    Your reference is to a journalistic piece that is light on information. I suspect HOX genes are the subtext here. I find it fascinating that a fully functional human being eventually develops from a single cell with one double copy of the human genome, within which there is no blueprint, no one-to-one mapping such as dimensions, number and position of arms and legs etc., but, rather, this information is encoded implicitly, with sheets of cells growing and differentiating as genes are either activated or inhibited by proteins produced by HOX genes. It truly is a miracle.

    Crop circles

    to obfuscate:

    obfuscate OB-fuh-skayt, transitive verb:
    1. To darken or render indistinct or dim.
    2. To make obscure or difficult to understand or make sense of.
    3. To confuse or bewilder.

    Not sure what you are implying here. I was wondering if you believed some crop circles were supernatural creations. If you are merely using this as an analogy for something else, I have missed the point. If you want to take this further you will need to be a little plainer. You know I am originally from the UK and really can’t quite understand the etiquette of where one should or should not mention religion.

    I thought, prior to observing some of these arguments, that religion and science were orthogonal, and that the issue was whether the concept of “Intelligent Design” is or is not science.

  115. Alan,

    I suspect HOX genes are the subtext here.

    You are obfuscating here also. I quoted Carroll not for the purpose of hox genes. I quoted Carroll in dispute of Darwinian evolutionary mechanisms. Do you dispute Carroll’s statement in reference to NS and neo-Darwinism? “But neither of those approaches revealed how individual animal forms were made or how they evolved.”

    I was wondering if you believed some crop circles were supernatural creations.

    Why must you continually avoid the questions at hand? How do you infer design without identifying the designers? You can’t claim human imitation of crop circles from unknown designers as evidence that all crop circles were design. Otherwise you must accept the same argument from ID. If we can design by imitating biological organisms, that is evidence of design. Do you understand the equivalence of the argument?

    I thought, prior to observing some of these arguments, that religion and science were orthogonal, and that the issue was whether the concept of “Intelligent Design” is or is not science.

    Are you being deliberately misleading? I’ve never even hinted at supernatural causation for these artifacts or ID. Religion is brought up because Darwinists insists on misrepresenting ID and equate it with religion. Darwinians are the ones who can’t resist from bringing religion into science, their own atheistic religion and other’s religion. If you can stop your misrepresentation of ID for a microsecond, we wouldn’t need to waste our time going in circles.

  116. I don’t feel obligated to explain the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence should be able to grasp exactly what my thesis is and what direct and indirect evidence I have marshalled to support it. Can you imagine questionig Stephen J. Gould when he said – “Intelligence was an evolutionary accident? Or how about Ernst Mayr when he described himself as – “a dyed-in-the-wool Darwinian.” Or how about Richard Dawkins fantasizing about “A Blind Watchmaker Climbing Mount Improbable? What is there to question? What could the response be? Don’t these statements explain themselves? Of course they do. To introduce a meaningless question and then attack a person for not responding is an old propaganda trick which Darwinians have implemented time and time again. They are desperate in the final moments with their death rattles, unable even to defend their own idiotic hypothesis, lashing out wildly at any one who differs with them without ever explaining why it is necessary to behave that way. Well I know why they act as they do. They know they are finished, washed up, over the hill and about to join the Phlogistonists of the 18th and the Etherists of the 19th centuries. The most remarkable feature of the whole charade is that has taken so long.

    I love it so!

  117. Teleologist

    I have re-read the link you provided and don’t see the statement you quote. Without context, it is impossible to know what is meant by “those approaches”.

    Crop circles.

    This is becoming a dialogue of the deaf. I was only wondering whether you think some crop circles were created supernaturally. Does “I’ve never even hinted at supernatural causation for these artifacts” mean “definitely not”. If so, that clarifies something that I don’t need to expand on. You seem to be using the word “design” here in some way that is sliding by me. Is there an analogy that I am missing? No, I do not understand the equivalence of the argument, as I don’t know what you are referring to. Sorry if I am being obtuse, but I really don’t know what you’re driving at.

    I don’t really accept “atheism=Darwinism=religion” as all three terms and many others in this debate are interpreted differently by almost everyone that bandies them about. It is almost pointless to pursue an argument before having agreed definitions of key terms.

    BTW, you didn’t pick up on my asking what you think about stem-cell research. No big deal if it is not of interest to you.

  118. I am sure no one really cares what Alan Fox accepts or doesn’t accept. His sole purpose is to disrupt, degrade and denigrate any challenge to the most failed hypothesis in the history of science. By so doing he has managed to get himself banned at “brainstorms,” much to my delight. In the Darwinian Mafia he is your typical, garden variety “soldier,” sent forth by Don Wesley to cause as much mayhem as possible while contributing absolutely nothing of substance.

    I love it so!

  119. John, Hi,

    I am still curious about whether any living scientist has taken your hypotheses seriously enough to comment on them, favourably or otherwise.

  120. I certainly hope not as I intend to be the last man standing when you atheist Darwinian mystics finally manage to commit suicide. It sure is taking you long enough.

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

    Darwinism is the slowest yet surest form of intellectual self-destruction in the history of science. I love it so!

  121. John,

    Not to change the subject or anything, but at a picnic site in the Pyrenees, there is a waterless, composting public toilet. It seems to work very well, it is clean and there are no bad smells. I wonder if you ever patented your composting toilet, because you may have a case against the French regional and national parks organisation.

  122. I see Teleologist is still willing to let this arrogant, ignorant little snot continue to post nothing but denigration. That is too bad. I have better things to do than interact with garbage.

    Adios.

  123. Before I abandon this forum let me review my recent experience concerning Alan Fox. He follows me around like a dog, invading every forum where I have posted including my own blog, offering nothing but denigration and insult, never presenting anything of substance. He debases not only me but all my distinguished sources. He was doing the same thing at “brainstorms ” on my own thread “A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis.” I finally informed the management there that if they were going to allow this man to continue with that sort of behavior that I would no longer participate at “brainstorms.” Shortly thereafter, after being thoroughly castigated, Alan Fox was banned from “brainstorms.”

    I now present Teleologist with exactly the same choice I offered to “brainstorms.” I am a published scientist who has a great deal to offer to any forum where I am allowed to present my views free from harassment. I will not contribute to ANY forum which permits the likes of Alan Fox to hold forth spewing his mindless venom not only against me but against some of the finest minds of two centuries. I am sure that Teleologist knows that I am serious. The choice is his.

  124. John,

    You don’t need to abandon a forum just because a venomous critter ‘foxes’ over you! Many of us don’t even bother reading the rants of such a fox; however, we may learn a big deal by reading your own scholarly postings! However, the decision is yours.

  125. I had hope that people can work out their differences. Unfortunately in cyberspace personality conflicts invariably happens, but it crosses the line when it becomes the focus of a blog. It is also evident that Alan has a way of goading John on. It is with great regret that I must remove Alan from this blog. This is the first case in the history of this blog that this action needs to be taken. Let’s get on with the business of science and the discussion of ID from this point forward.

  126. Teleologist

    It has nothing to do with Fox goading me on. It has to do with the fact that he would engage in personal denigration not only of me but of all my distinguished sources while in the process offering nothing of substance himself. I would be happy to stop posting here if it would restore some kind of balance to this forum but I will not tolerate deprecation of some of the greatest evolutionary scholars of all time simply because they were not Darwinian mystics and mystics Darwinians most certainly are as they believe in forces that cannot be demonstrated. I am sorry that this had to happen but it is a transparent demonstration of the desperate measures the Darwinians are capable of implementing in their final days. I think you will find that banning troublemakers from your forum can only improve the quality of the dialogue.

    It is interesting that I cannot ban anyone from my blog. Furthermore, I am a great believer in allowing everyone who chooses to make a perfect fool of himself to do exactly that if he insists. Alan Fox has proven to be an excellent example. He still presents himself at my blog for what he really is, just another garden variety Darwinian worshipper of the Great God Chance. He offers nothing positive to any forum he has ever visited just like every other regular from Panda’s Thumb. If I am wrong please correct me.

  127. John, you are right. I saw his insults toward you in your blog also. No one should be subjected to personal attacks. IDists are a small band compared to the Darwinian Priesthood. We need to unite against the religious Darwinians. You still have a free voice here if you so choose.

  128. I think Alan Fox should be exposed be means of personal attack as that is the means he has employed. When in Rome don’t you know. Also please do not identify me as an IDist. Most of the Idists that I know want nothing to do with me nor I with them. When their high priest, William Dembski, banned me from his forum he lost a valuable ally and I see no sign that my one time friend DaveScot is about to reinstate me. Egos are terrible things. Dembski has a huge one. So do many others who have identified themselvs with the so called “Intelligent Design Movement.” You are a notable exception. I suspect it has to do with your sincere Christianity. Terry Trainor is another example that comes to mind. He is the one that said:

    Davison is the Darwinian’s worst nightmare.”

    I certainly hope so. When insulted and debased, the only cheeks I intend to turn are either or both of my lower pair.

    “Since God found it necessary to limit man’s intelligence why didn’t he also limit his stupidity.”
    Konrad Adenauer

  129. […] Don’t know your breath. Open-minded, rational Christians knows that you are an atheistic fundie and a heretic of science. […]

  130. […] “FRANCIS COLLINS??!? WTF? So this is the guy we’re all supposed to be grateful to for showing us how Christianity and evolution can be reconciled, and now he’s going to be a talking head for some creationist propaganda? Thanks, Francis. I guess I’ve been too kind.”Myers was much kinder to Collins than what he remembers. When he thought that Collins was a useful idiot for his Darwinian Atheism, Collins was one of his leading lights. Myers went as far as saying Collins was able to do good science as long as he keeps his religion in the closet. […]

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.