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

Friday, December 29, 2006

Why do anti-'Darwinists' have such a hard time understanding science?

Even when they claim to be super-smart?

David Scott Springer, aka 'Davescot', a retired Dell computer programmer, has apparently convinced himself that because of his super-high IQ (he claims to have a 'certified' IQ "north of 150") and the facts that he has a couple of patents and, afterall, worked with computers, anything he thinks about non-computer things like, oh say, evolution, must be absolutely correct (for kicks, see this).

In reality, Springer, like all such folk, simply does not understand how little he actually understands about subjects that he has no training, education, or experience in. His claim that one can learn biology in their spare time notwithstanding, The FallibleFiend, who happens to be an engineer (see? they're not all bad... :) ), points out a major misinterpretation by Springer in a post he had written earlier in which he had claimed that a study showed that conserved gene elements in humans were most similar to the coelacanth.

That is not what the paper indicates, and Fiend points this out. He tried to point it out to Springer, also, but wouldn't you know it:

"My post never showed up - and there was never a retraction."

If you do not know, Springer's haunt is Bill "Ted Haggard of Information Theory" Dembski's blog, Uncommon Descent, a haven for creationist sycophants to drool at the feet of their hero Dembski and idiotic mumbo jumbo masquerading as 'deep thoughts' to be posted. It is also one of the most heavily "moderated" (censored) blogs on the topic, second only to those blogs on which the authors do not allow comments at all.


Apparently, the post has finally been allowed at UD. I have to wonder if it was because so many people pointed out the censorship angle that Springer flet compelled to put it up. No matter, Fallible says the reply Springer spewed was basically irrelevant. Like most things Springer writes.


DaveScot said...

Page, it's not my fault that biologists have failed to make a convincing case for mud to man evolution by random mutation and natural selection. That was your job, loser.

Designs said...

From the arrogant and ignorant ramblings on this blog, I can understand why “stupid lay people” refuse to accept Darwinian Fundamentalism. Besides, scientific evidence is whittling away at the validity of gradual Darwinian evolution. The number of scientists who are dissatisfied with the Darwinism hypothetical nonsense continues to increase. Serious problems exist in the ability of the theory to account for the radical changes and appearances of life forms in such short time periods on the evolutionary scale. Explanations given by Darwinists for the Cambrian explosion cannot adequately account for the punctuated equilibriums and are just hand-waving non-empirical baloney. Darwin himself expressed grave concerns about his theory based on the Cambrian explosion.


Check out the growing movement of scientists (now over 600; some of who are National Academy of Science members) who find Darwinism unsatisfactory as a theory to explain all aspects of the diversity of life.

The list is at

This document simply states that “We are skeptical of the claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged”.

The number of scientists joining this list will continue to grow as more scientists, including myself, from all areas of biology critically examine the Darwin theory. No longer will scientists who are dissatisfied with Darwinism remain subjectively complacent to repressive Darwinian Fundamentalism, which is the single greatest threat to critical thought, reasoning, and the scientific method. Darwinism has evolved from science to a dangerous philosophy, as evident by the manner in which many Darwin believers, such those commenting in this blog, react to any criticism of their evolutionary belief system. The Darwin Fundies proclaim, “DARWINISM MUST BE TRUE!”, so they use sarcasm and other derogatory comments directed at Darwinian dissenters and skeptics in order to discredit them in an unprofessional and unscientific way.


Designs said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Doppelganger said...

Springer, unable to recognize the failure of his undereducated, uninformed positon, does what he does best.

Drops an asinine insult, tosses in an idiotic strawman caricature of that which he does not understand, then runs away.