Commentary on the so-called Creation/Evolution/Intelligent Design Debate and Right-Wing nuttery in general - and please ignore the typos (I make lots!)

Wednesday, January 04, 2006

A Word on the Title

Greetings one and all!

The title of this blog, All-Too-Common Dissent, refers to the hackneyed, shopworn, unintelligible, or just plain silly attacks, disagreements, and supposed arguments leveled against the Theory of Evolution by its detractors (and is a fun dig at prolific Intelligent Design proponant William Dembski's now defunct blog, "Uncommon Descent").

While I will be commenting on such things from time to time, the purpose of this blog is primarily to provide links to and commentary on the essays and posts of individuals that are far more patient and eloquent than myself on these and related issues.

Please feel free to provide comments of your own, providing they add something of value to the discussion.

Thanks!

8 comments:

Doppelganger said...

It is my understanding that Dembski's blog is re-opened, but under "new management". If you can call it that...

Daniel said...

I've been reading through your recent dismantling of the disingenuous "arguments" put forth by Pogge and his ilk, and you've gotten off to a great start.

I'll be dropping by, lurking and linking, as much as possible.

mightyscotchpine said...

Thanks for this blog. Thanks for sharing the science of evolutionary biology with us.

I occasionally have the good/bad fortune of discussing evolution with "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" creationist. I consider myself fairly intelligent, but my education in the field of evolutionary biology went no further than undergrad-level evolution and genetics classes. When I discuss the facts of this subject, I refuse to say anything that I've not read in a credible, independently-verifiable scientific source. No Fox News Channel "some people say" crap. Many of the people I debate this subject with have no such compunctions.

In a recent conversation, I mentioned the Broad Institute's findings, and the rough percentage of genetic similarity humans share with chimps. I met with a response of "so do humans and strawberries".

How would you suggest that a person deal with such ignorance? This particularly hilarious response came form a family friend, so I can't just walk away and never speak to them again. (And to be honest, my desire to demolish their ridiculous notions won't let me walk away.)

By the way, I'm an computer science professional by education and by trade, so take hope.

Doppelganger said...

Hi MSP,

Thanks for the comments. As I have additional duties at my job, I will not be writing much here for the foreseeable future (just so you know).

As for the 'strawberries' comment... Well, sure, all cells have to do roughly the same things to stay alive, so we should expect that all cellular organisms to possess a good chunk of the same genes. But the DNA sequence identity is something else altogether, and, of course, we share much more with creatures more closely related to us than those that are more distantly related to us. And it is not just the genes. It is the DNA sequence within (and without) the genes. The pattenrs of shared unique mutations is very compelling evidence for descent, and that is NOT what we see between us and strawberries.

Ricky Carson said...

Hmm. This guy is accusing you of logical fallacies. This looks like fun!

1. Appeal to false authority and argument from ignorance?

You are the one who chose to make a major issue of...simple factual statement...made on a movie rating forum.

2. Appeal to Emotion?

You are the one who tried to twist my statement into a proclamation of professional credentials, so that you could then boast of discovering that I had no professional credentials (aka, Strawman Argument).

3. Argument from ignorance?

You are the one who had to hunt me down just so you could tilt at your perceived monsters.

4. Against the man?

For someone who claims to hold advanced science degrees, you are incredibly immature, irrational and clueless.

5. Appeal to false authority?

I say again, I know a lot more science than the average, evolution-indoctrinated person does

6. Specific to general fallacy?

but so many evolutionists can't handle the fact that someone can be scientifically literate and be a creationist, they try to impugn my intellect.

7. Specific to general fallacy?

That statement does not mean that I hold a Ph.D. It simply means that evolutionists like to lie a lot about creationists to make themselves feel better.

8. some, but not all

There are creationists who hold professional credentials, even some in the biological fields.

Ricky Carson said...

Hmm. This guy is accusing you of logical fallacies. This looks like fun!

1. Appeal to false authority and argument from ignorance?
You are the one who chose to make a major issue of...simple factual statement...made on a movie rating forum.
2. Appeal to Emotion?
You are the one who tried to twist my statement into a proclamation of professional credentials, so that you could then boast of discovering that I had no professional credentials (aka, Strawman Argument).
3. Argument from ignorance?
You are the one who had to hunt me down just so you could tilt at your perceived monsters.
4. Against the man?
For someone who claims to hold advanced science degrees, you are incredibly immature, irrational and clueless.
5. Appeal to false authority?
I say again, I know a lot more science than the average, evolution-indoctrinated person does
6. Specific to general fallacy?
but so many evolutionists can't handle the fact that someone can be scientifically literate and be a creationist, they try to impugn my intellect.
7. Specific to general fallacy?
That statement does not mean that I hold a Ph.D. It simply means that evolutionists like to lie a lot about creationists to make themselves feel better.
8. some, but not all
There are creationists who hold professional credentials, even some in the biological fields.

Doppelganger said...

Hi Ricky (what are you - 11?),

I see that for some odd reason you post all your comments twice and in the wrong place.

Such is life. Let's take a look at your gibberish:


1. Appeal to false authority and argument from ignorance?
You are the one who chose to make a major issue of...simple factual statement...made on a movie rating forum.


Your 'argument' is a non-sequitur. It has no relevantce whatsoever to 'appeal to false authority' or 'argument from ignorance.'

2. Appeal to Emotion?
You are the one who tried to twist my statement into a proclamation of professional credentials, so that you could then boast of discovering that I had no professional credentials (aka, Strawman Argument).


Oh, I see - "Ricky" is really Richard Alexander!
The fellow who thinks that he is in the top percentile of peoplein the nation in terms of scientific literacy because he did well on the SATs and the ASVAB!

New name, same old fluff.

3. Argument from ignorance?
You are the one who had to hunt me down just so you could tilt at your perceived monsters.



Hunt you down? The usual persecution complex from an undereducated creationist.
Sorry, 'Ricky', I didn't hunt you down. It took maybe three mouse clicks to find you on a blog. Don't flatter yourself.

4. Against the man?
For someone who claims to hold advanced science degrees, you are incredibly immature, irrational and clueless.


Funny - YOU just made an 'against the man' argument!


5. Appeal to false authority?
I say again, I know a lot more science than the average, evolution-indoctrinated person does



No, you don't. The fact that you think you do just shows you to be deep in Dunning-Krueger land.


6. Specific to general fallacy?
but so many evolutionists can't handle the fact that someone can be scientifically literate and be a creationist, they try to impugn my intellect.



Actually, YOU try to embellish - pathetically - your supposed intellect. First you try to claim doing well on the SAT and the ASVAB makes you some sort of wunderkind in science, then you claim that the SAT has a science section (lie), YOU are the one lying about your supposed smarts! That you can't live up tp your own pathetic hype is YOUR problem, not mine.


7. Specific to general fallacy?
That statement does not mean that I hold a Ph.D.


Clearly you do not.


It simply means that evolutionists like to lie a lot about creationists to make themselves feel better.



Not quite as much as creationists lie about themselves to make themselves feel better.
"Look at me! I am "Ricky" and I did well on the SATs, so I am an EXPERT in all science!"

How pathetic can a person be?

You can't even seem to reply to the correct blog post!

8. some, but not all
There are creationists who hold professional credentials, even some in the biological fields.


And some creationists buy their 'credentials' from diploma mills. Some claim expertise they do not have.

Some are pathetic lying pieces of crap.

Doppelganger said...

And it was oh-so-clever how you just copy and pasted the last email you sent...

Blog Archive