Conservatives: Monumentally stupid or monumentally dishonest?

Or maybe a little of each? Or perhaps just plain deluded?

You be the judge.

Not only do they seem to be utterly ignorant of history*, but they demonstrate their true disdain for the military that they pretend to love so much.

4000 dead AMERICAN soldiers? No big deal....




*Jonah Goldberg, for example, demonstrated his stupidity in his latest book in which he claimed, in part, that Hitelr was a 'leftist' because the name of the Nazi party had the word 'socialist' in it...

David Scott Springer - tough guy for IDism

David Scott Springer - Davescot - is supposedly a former marine, retired Dell uber-wizard millionaire, who is now the main deleter/censor/banner of Bill "Ted Haggard of Informaton Theory" Dembski's blog, Uncommon Descent.

Here is what this tough guy just had to write in April 2006 about a biologist:

Actually it makes me feel like doing some pain experiments on PZ Myers. I don’t believe he feels pain. All the blood and screaming from my fists
pounding his face to a pulp would be nothing more significant than an automobile engine leaking oil and bearings making noise from lack of lubrication. Of course I could be wrong. -ds

Wow, tough talk from the tough guy.

The same tough guy who backed out of a face-to-face meeting with a professional clown whom he had been insulting a while ago. Even told the clown in so many words that he would be packing heat, have his dogs with him, would employ chain saws in his defense, and would call the police if he showed up.

David Scott Springer - ex-Marine, extreme mesomorph, built like a boxer or a linebacker (according to himself):

(isn't that cute - big tough guy truck and all) afraid of a clown.


How typical...

"Intelligent Design" has NOTHING to do with religion - nope - all science!

So they tell us.

But have a look at this - it is a list of screenings of the movie. Note the locations of almost all of them.

Just a coincidence, I am sure.

Conservative Christian Republican Sally Kern put in her place

Sally Kern, right-wing anti-gay fruitcake, has received a letter from a teenager. It is a great letter, and sadly will likely be ignored by the bible-thumping mouth-breather Kern and her allies:

Rep Kern:

On April 19, 1995, in Oklahoma City a terrorist detonated a bomb that killed my mother and 167 others. 19 children died that day. Had I not had the chicken pox that day, the body count would've likely have included one more. Over 800 other Oklahomans were injured that day and many of those still suffer through their permanent wounds.

That terrorist was neither a homosexual or was he involved in Islam. He was an extremist Christian forcing his views through a body count. He held his beliefs and made those who didn't live up to them pay with their lives.

As you were not a resident of Oklahoma on that day, it could be explained why you so carelessly chose words saying that the homosexual agenda is worst than terrorism. I can most certainly tell you through my own experience that is not true. I am sure there are many people in your voting district that laid a loved one to death after the terrorist attack on Oklahoma City. I kind of doubt you'll find one of them that will agree with you.

I was five years old when my mother died. I remember what a beautiful, wise, and remarkable woman she was. I miss her. Your harsh words and misguided beliefs brought me to tears, because you told me that my mother's killer was a better person than a group of people that are seeking safety and tolerance for themselves.

As someone left motherless and victimized by terrorists, I say to you very clearly you are absolutely wrong.

You represent a district in Oklahoma City and you very coldly express a lack of love, sympathy or understanding for what they've been through. Can I ask if you might have chosen wiser words were you a real Oklahoman that was here to share the suffering with Oklahoma City? Might your heart be a bit less cold had you been around to see the small bodies of children being pulled out of rubble and carried away by weeping firemen?

I've spent 12 years in Oklahoma public schools and never once have I had anyone try to force a gay agenda on me. I have seen, however, many gay students beat up and there's never a day in school that has went by when I haven't heard the word **** slung at someone. I've been called gay slurs many times and they hurt and I am not even gay so I can just imagine how a real gay person feels. You were a school teacher and you have seen those things too. How could you care so little about the suffering of some of your students?

Let me tell you the result of your words in my school. Every openly gay and suspected gay in the school were having to walk together Monday for protection. They looked scared. They've already experienced enough hate and now your words gave other students even more motivation to sneer at them and call them names. Afterall, you are a teacher and a lawmaker, many young people have taken your words to heart. That happens when you assume a role of responsibility in your community. I seriously think before this week ends that some kids here will be going home bruised and bloody because of what you said.

I wish you could've met my mom. Maybe she could've guided you in how a real Christian should be acting and speaking.

I have not had a mother for nearly 13 years now and wonder if there were fewer people like you around, people with more love and tolerance in their hearts instead of strife, if my mom would be here to watch me graduate from high school this spring. Now she won't be there. So I'll be packing my things and leaving Oklahoma to go to college elsewhere and one day be a writer and I have no intentions to ever return here. I have no doubt that people like you will incite crazy people to build more bombs and kill more people again. I don't want to be here for that. I just can't go through that again.

You may just see me as a kid, but let me try to teach you something. The old saying is sticks and stones will break your bones, but words will never hurt you. Well, your words hurt me. Your words disrespected the memory of my mom. Your words can cause others to pick up sticks and stones and hurt others.

Sincerely

Tucker


Outstanding.

But, Republicans are Republicans:

If any further proof was needed that the GOP is the party of hatred
and intolerance, the Oklahoma Legislature’s Republican caucus has
refused to condemn Rep. Sally Kern (R) for saying – among other bigoted anti-gay remarks – that gays pose a greater danger to the United States than terrorists. Here are some highlights from 365gay.com
(http://www.365gay.com/Newscon08/03/031208ok.htm): Thousands of emails have flooded into the state mailboxes of lawmakers demanding an apology but House Speaker Chris Benge (R) tells the Oklahoman newspaper that he has no plans to
punish Kern.

Nice...

It gets worse - Kern's husband is a Baptist Minister and she is a member of liar for Christ Phyllis Schlafly's 'Eagle Forum'...

Casey Luskin, propagandist for Christ

The Energizer Bunny of the Anti-Evolution movement, Casey Luskin, is up to his usual pathetic antics.

He was recently on a 'chat' for a San Francisco newspaper and he made the following claim, (about 1/3 of the way down) in response to a question asking him what evidence compelled him to espouse ID:

(4) Genetics: Genetic research continues to uncover functions for "junk-DNA,"
include functionality for pseudogenes, introns, LINE, and ALU elements. ID
proponents have long said that DNA was designed, then junk-DNA will turn out to
have function, whereas neo-Darwisms's support for junk-DNA would turn out to be
a science-stopping view. It turns out, ID proponents were right!

Ah, yes - "neo-Darwinism" is a science stopper when it comes to 'junk DNA'. Right - so, when we look into this matter, the publications - if any - should be dominated by Intelligent Design creationist 'scientists', right? We should see predictions by creationists or IDists going back decades espousing function for all junk DNA, and we should see evolutionists claiming that it was totally junk and useless and actively discouraging research on it, right?

But wait - Luskin takes this further. A few questions later, he writes a screed laced with innuendo, nonsense, and that oh-so-creationist tendency to ignore reality.
It is a lot of garbage to wade through.

ID proponents long-predicted the death of the junk-DNA paradigm, while most (but
not all) neo-Darwinsists were defending it. (please see http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1437
for details).

I dissect that article at the link Luskin provided below. Suffice it to say, Luskin's take on junk DNA is a bit misguided, at best.

Regarding the percent-similarity between human and chimp-DNA, the 98% statistic
is often based upon studies of functional-proteins, so I'm not sure if junk-DNA
would apply here.

In fact, the numbers generally refer to ALL DNA, 'junk' and not. Of course, the fact that Luskin refers only to 'similarity' indicates a rather shallow grasp of what the analyses actually show.

Nonetheless, it's worth commenting on this statitistic by asking 2 questions: 1)
Is the ~99% Human/Chimp DNA-similarity statistic accurate? While recent studies
have confirmed that certain stretches of human and chimp DNA are on average
about 1.23% different, this is merely an estimate with huge caveats.

Actually, recent studies have confirmed that most functional genes are much more similar than that - closer to 99.4% similar or only 0.6% different.

A recent news article in Science observed that the 1% figure "reflects only base
substitutions, not the many stretches of DNA that have been inserted or deleted
in the genomes." (see Jon Cohen, "Relative Differences: The Myth of 1%,"
Science, Vol. 316:1836 (June 29, 2007).) In other words, when the chimp genome
has no similar stretch of human DNA, such DNA sequences are ignored by those
touting the statistic that humans and chimps are only 1% genetically different.
For this reason, the aforementioned Science news article was subtitled "The Myth
of 1%," and printed the following language to describe the 1% statistic: -
"studies are showing that [humans and chimps] are not as similar as many tend to
believe"; - the 1% statistic is a "truism [that] should be retired"; - the 1%
statistic is "more a hindrance for understanding than a help"; - "the 1%
difference wasn't the whole story"; - "Researchers are finding that on top of
the 1% distinction, chunks of missing DNA, extra genes, altered connections in
gene networks, and the very structure of chromosomes confound any quantification
of 'humanness' versus 'chimpness.'" Indeed, due to the huge caveats in the 1%
statistic, some scientists are suggesting that a better method of measuring
human/chimp genetic differences might be counting individual gene copies. When
this metric is employed, human and chimp DNA is over 5% different.

True, however, what Luskin fails to note is that if we are to adopt this "new" method of comparison, than ALL DNA 'similarity' numbers between ALL species will have to be increased, not just the human-chimp numbers. Of course, what Luskin fails to note - and likely understand - is that there is a good rationale for not counting the individual nucleotide differences in insertions and deletions - they are one-time events. That is, when a "chunk of [missing] DNA" is removed from a genome, it happens all at once. A 1000 base deletion does not take 1000 events in which a single nucleotide is lost, it is ALL lost in one event. Thus, most researchers had 'counted' such occurrences on par with single nucleotide substitutions. Luskin also fails to mention that any two humans have different numbers of genes! I guess humans must not be related to each other... Poor humans... And, what is more, the author of the article Luskin quotes from, Jon Cohen, caught wind of this Luskin article and wrote the following letter to him:

From: Jon Cohen [snip]
Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 12:05 PM
To: Casey
Luskin
Cc: [Snip]
Subject: Errors in your posting
Mr. Luskin,

I wrote the Science news article that you refer to in your recent posting on the
Discovery Institute’s “Evolution News and Views.” Given that “misreporting of
the evolution issue is one key reason” for that site, which complains that “much
of the news coverage has been sloppy, inaccurate, and in some cases, overtly
biased,” I wanted to point out that your own post contains several errors and
apparent misunderstandings. I realize that you are largely reporting what others
have written, but you do it selectively and out of context–and you also fail to scrutinize what the original reports said.
As I wrote in my article, chimps and humans do differ genetically by more than 1%, but our genes–in contrast to what the Scientific American posting states–are only 1.23% different. The bulk of the differences between chimps and humans exist in noncoding regions of the genome that regulate our genes and in gene copy number variation/segmental duplication, which ultimately determine how much product (typically protein) they produce.

You also state that my article “reports” that copy numbers differ by 6.4%. Not only does this misleadingly imply that humans thus differ from chimps by 6.4% (it’s probably closer to 5%), you fail to note that my article was not the source of this figure: I was citing a report that was done by a computational genomics researcher. In other words, it’s a model, which is another way of saying it’s an estimate, not a hard fact. (The 1.23% is a hard fact: It’s based on sequencing the entire human genome and the chimpanzee genome.)
The claim that humans are as different from each other as was previously thought we were different from chimps also is misleading and inaccurate. No credible study that I know of ever suggested that one human’s genes differ from another human’s gene by 1.23%. The Scientific America posting–which is referring to an AP story in USA Today that’s referring to the PLoS Biology paper about Craig Venter’s genome–does not explain that Venter reported a 0.5% difference between his inherited genome from his mother and father, which once again is measuring not simply gene differences but differences in noncoding regions that include inserts and deletions (that may sometimes contain copied or deleted genes or may impact regulation).
None of the original studies I cited in my article or Venter’s genome paper suggest in
any way that their findings challenge Darwinian evolution, and I doubt that any
of those researchers would support that conclusion from their data. And indeed,
the fact that we differ genetically by more than 1%, largely for gene regulatory
reasons, was predicted in Science more than 30 years ago (again as my article
notes)–and the 1975 article was co-authored by one of the world’s leading
evolutionary biologists at the time, Allan Wilson.
The bottom line is that your post is so distant from the sources that you have completely garbled the data to support Intelligent Design. It’s sloppy, inaccurate, and overtly biased.
Your are welcome to post my e-mail in its entirety, but given the
errors that you made in your post by selectively quoting from other posts,
please do not excerpt this for a public posting. I’m also attaching original
papers that discuss these issues. It’s complicated stuff, and I hope these
papers help clarify the details.
Jon Cohen

Of interest is the date of Cohen's letter - October 20, 2007. Recall that the 'chat' in which Luskin took part occurred just a few days ago - Mar. 11, 2008. So Luskin is STILL using disinformation that had been corrected for him. Will the good little IDcreationists out there in listener/reader land care? Doubt it... Luskin posted a 'response' to Cohen's letter here (no comments allowed, of course), which I will take a look at in a later posting.

But new findings in genetics show that gene-coding DNA might not even be the
right place to seek differences between humans and chimps. But there is a deeper
question: (2) If humans and chimps were truly only 1% different at the genetic
level, why should that demonstrate common ancestry?

Perhaps because that is not all that such studies indicate? I predict that Luskin has never seen DNA sequence data, certainly never analyzed any. The reporting of % similarity is interesting and informative in and of itself, but it is only part of the story - in reality, what indicates descent is not just the similarity between any two sequences (genomes), it is the patterns of unique shared mutations among many species' genomes.(see the section on cladistics).
The next section of Luskin's gibberish merely provides more evidence that he does not truly understand what the "% similarity" figures truly mean, and does not understnad what phylogenetic analyses entail.

Similarities in key genetic sequences may be explained as a
result of functional requirements and common design rather than mere common
descent. We might reasonably ask the evolutionist why the 1% difference value is
considered powerful evidence for Darwinian evolution, and at what point does the
comparison cease to support Darwinian evolution? What about 2% different? 3%?
5%? 10%? Is there an objective metric for falsification here, or are Darwinists
putting forth a fallacious argument for human / chimp common ancestry? In my
view, intelligent design is certainly compatible with human/ape common ancestry,
but the truth is that the percent difference says nothing about whether humans
and chimps share a common ancestor. The percent genetic similarity between
humans and apes does not demonstrate Darwinian evolution, unless one excludes
the possibility of intelligent design. Just as intelligent agents 're-use'
functional components that work over and over in different systems (e.g., wheels
for cars and wheels for airplanes), genetic similarities between humans and
chimps could also be explained as the result of the re-usage of common genetic
programs due to functional requirements of the hominid body plan.

It could be, but then, so could de-novo genetic elements. With a Designer, any and all phenomena are explained by His - oops, I mean "it's" - folly and whim.
See? Just spewing goo for the rubes. Luskin is clueless, or is being purposefully deceptive. All for his beliefs.


*******************************

Luskins IDEA center article, linked to in the 'chat', my comments interspersed:

Two recent news articles are discussing the death of the junk-DNA icon of Neo-Darwinism.

One, what does he mean by 'icon of Neo-Darwinism'? Apparently, Luskin is trying to indicate that this is a major issue for evolution. As he frames it, it is not.

Wired Magazine has an article pejoratively titled "One Scientist's Junk Is a Creationist's Treasure" that emphasizes the positive point that intelligent design has
made successful predictions on the question of "junk-DNA."

That's funny - I cannot wait to see these 'predictions' . The article only quotes Discovery Institute hack Stephen Meyer as claiming that function in junk DNA is an 'empirical' prediction of ID and it disconfirms evolution, which noit only shows what a sleaze Meyer is, but that he is an out and out liar, to boot. But I digress.

The article reports: [A] surprising group is embracing the
results: intelligent-design advocates. Since the early '70s, many scientists
have believed that a large amount of many organisms' DNA is useless junk. But
recently, genome researchers are finding that these "noncoding" genome regions
are responsible for important biological functions.The Wired Magazine article then quotes Discovery
Institute's Stephen Meyer explaining that this is a prediction of intelligent
design that was largely unexpected under neo-Darwinian thought:
"It is a
confirmation of a natural empirical prediction or expectation of the theory of
intelligent design, and it disconfirms the neo-Darwinian hypothesis," said
Stephen Meyer, director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery
Institute in Seattle.The Wired Magazine article openly and unashamedly
confuses intelligent design with creationism,

Indeed - ID advocates are creationists, whether Luskin wants ot admit it or not. Of course, the article glosses over some important facts - like the little fact that it was evolutionists that discovered that some junk DNA has funcxtion, and that even the originators of the phrase "junk DNA" did not assert that all noncoding DNA was useless, and mistakenly gives the creationists more credit - much more credit - than they deserve. And Collins - I just wish that guy would keep his mouth shut.
Anyway, these 'predictions' by ID creationists - where were they published? They weren't. What we really see is creationists taking papers indicating function for some junk DNA and claiming that they would 'expect' this. 'Expecting' something after the fact is not a prediction.

Well, it goes on and on, and frankly, like all lies, it takes much longer to correct them than to make them, and I don't have the time or pateince to go through each of this person's distortions and contortions.

But you get the picture.

Did OK on the Asvab? SATs? YOU TOO are therefore an uberexpert on all things scientific!

*UPDATED MARCH 26*
Scroll to the bottom


Pooua (aka Richard Alexander) is a creationist. He works with lasers (an AAS degree).

On a forum discussing the creationist propaganda movie, 'Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed', he wrote:

"I have seen this play out for 25 years. This is the way that evolutionists behave. When I take standardized tests that show that I am in the top few percent of the nation in scientific literacy, and yet am told constantly that I am scientifically ignorant simply because I dispute evolutionary theory."

I emailed and asked him what tests he was referring to, he replied:

I have been administered several standardized IQ and aptitude tests. The first
such tests that I recall were administered to me when I was in 7th or 8th Grade,
though I don't know the specific results (other than it showed that I tested 3
or 4 years beyond my grade level in a private school). I was tested for and was
admitted to the Gifted and Talented program in high school (which also
established my IQ as 132, just barely high enough to qualify for Mensa, though I
never joined); I still have a photocopy of the results of those tests (I was
administered a battery of standardized IQ tests). I also took the military ASVAB
each year in high school. It routinely placed me above 99% of all the people who
took the test. I also took a standardized aptitude test administered by the NM
employment commission, which showed that I had the aptitude for any job they had
indexed. Of course, I took the SAT and ACT, but my scores on the SAT weren't
fantastic enough to merit any special award; I scored fairly well on the ACT (I
don't remember the specific numbers just now, and I don't have time to look them
up at the moment). So, I have taken more than a half-dozen standardized IQ and
aptitude tests over the years, and almost always scored in the top few percent
of the nation.

See? THAT is why this creationist's opinions on evolution should be taken seriously - he did good on the ASVAB!

Now, none of those standardized tests have any real bearing on one's scientific aptitude - that is just Richard puffing himself up, as these folks often do.
He, of course, insisted that both the ACTs and SATs do in fact test for scientific aptitude, but I suspect that anyone who has taken such tests can tell you that they do no such thing.
Pooua quickly became unhinged and began ranting - it was pretty funny. At one point, after I had mentioned that I went on to earn a doctorate in the sciences, he said it didn't matter much since what it takes to get such a degree is not standardized and measured nationally. He gave me tacit permission to publish our exchange, so, here it is thus far, oldest first (I edited my many typos and changed some formatting to make reading smoother):

*********************************************
2/14/08

Hi there,
Did you write this:

"I have seen this play out for 25 years. This is the way that evolutionists behave. When I take standardized tests that show that I am in the top few percent of the nation in scientific literacy, and yet am told constantly that I am scientifically ignorant simply because I dispute evolutionary theory."

If so, I am curious - what standardized tests are you referring to?

Thanks,Doppelganger

****

2/14/08


Yes, I believe I wrote that several weeks to a few months ago.
I have been administered several standardized IQ and aptitude tests. The first such tests that I recall were administered to me when I was in 7th or 8th Grade, though I don't know the specific results (other than it showed that I tested 3 or 4 years beyond my grade level in a private school). I was tested for and was admitted to the Gifted and Talented program in high school (which also established my IQ as 132, just barely high enough to qualify for Mensa, though I never joined); I still have a photocopy of the results of those tests (I was administered a battery of standardized IQ tests).
I also took the military ASVAB each year in high school. It routinely placed me above 99% of all the people who took the test. I also took a standardized aptitude test administered by the NM employment commission, which showed that I had the aptitude for any job they had indexed.
Of course, I took the SAT and ACT, but my scores on the SAT weren't fantastic enough to merit any special award; I scored fairly well on the ACT (I don't remember the specific numbers just now, and I don't have time to look them up at the moment). So, I have taken more than a half-dozen standardized IQ and aptitude tests over the years, and almost always scored in the top few percent of the nation.

Richard

****

2/15/08

Hi,

Ok, so which of those says anything of your scientific abilities? None of those tests have any particularly specific science content, as best I can recall.
I took the ASVAB also, and ranked in the 99th percentile, and one of the questions I distinctly remember asked what came out of an automobile's tailpipe, and the possible answers were: smoke, broken glass, battery acid, and nails. Not exactly a test that scoring well on would rank one up there with Steve Hawking.
You see, I ask because in addition to doing well on the ACT and the GRE and the ASVAB, I went on to earn a doctorate in Anatomy and Cell Biology at a major research institution where my research was on the molecular evolution of Primates, and the usual arguments against evolution I see are, frankly, garbage, and such arguments are frequently accompanied by claims of superior intellect by the arguer.

So, I was just curious. Thanks for confirming my suspicions.

Doppelganger

****

Richard didn't like that response...

****

2/15/08

The SAT and ACT test for scientific literacy. Others simply test for intelligence.
But, thanks for trying to restart in the middle of a discussion I had months ago. You demonstrate exactly what I expect of an evolutionary scientist: arrogance, contempt for others, an obsessive need to destroy the reputation of anyone who doesn't worship evolutionary theory.
That is the reason that evolutionists tell the lie that Creationists are ignorant or stupid. I guess you are telling me that Stephen Hawking is the lower scientific threshold, that anyone not on his academic plateau is unworthy of holding an opinion about science. In my world--the real world--it does not make any practical difference whether evolution explains our origins or not. Like most honest people, I work a job, pay my bills and go about my business.
But, what does matter a lot are ivory tower jerks who think their years in academia make themselves demi-gods. It's really too bad that you have the attitude you do; I was always an enthusiast of science. Now, I am increasingly of the opinion that science can tell us nothing that is worth having the scientists. Instead, I am increasingly interested in politics.

Don't play this game with me, that "I'm a bigger scientist than you are, so your opinions are all dirt."

Richard
****

2/20/08

Hi Richard,

You seem fairly hostile, and your conclusion jumping says much.

But you say the SATs and ACTs measure scientific literacy - I find that interesting because the ETS - the company that makes them and grades them - website says this about the SATs:

The College Board's SAT® Program consists of the SAT Reasoning TestTM and SAT Subject TestsTM. The SAT Reasoning Test is designed to measure critical reading, math, and writing skills needed for academic success in college. The SAT Subject Tests are designed to measure knowledge and skills in particular subject areas.

No mention of scientific literacy. For basic information on the SATs, you can try this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAT
Similar information comes from the group that does the ACTs:

The ACT® test assesses high school students' general educational development and their ability to complete college-level work.

Again, nothing about scientific literacy. Sorry.

You then yammer on about MY arrogance and all this, yet YOU are the one that embellished your own abilities in an attempt to make your anti-evolution position seem reasonable from a scientific standpoint.
And as for Steve Hawking - I guess you missed the point, which was sort of a joke. No surprise, really, but I would have thought someone with such a high IQ - like you - would have got it.

Your ending rant about 'jerks' like me smacks of pure envy, jealousy, and contempt - all of which I am also used to from creationists who embellish their intellectual 'credentials'. I plan on writing this up ion my blog at some point. Feel free to check it out.http://all-too-common-dissent.blogspot.com/
Take care, Richard. But please stop trying to puff yourself up so much. It makes jerks like me envious...

****

2/20/08


The SAT and ACT have changed much in the 24 years since I took them. The scores aren't even comparable between the old, old set and the new.
BTW, the tests and evaluations of a single college are not a standardized test, so your degree(s) don't show how you compare nationally, either. One simply assumes that a degree from a reputable college means that you are competently knowledgeable in your field, and the better the school's reputation and your placement in it, the better you are. These are not statistical measures.
When you publish my e-mails in your blog--which I figured you would do, whether you told me or not--be sure to mention that I challenge the average layman to take a test of general scientific literacy, covering all fields of science. I guarantee, I will score better than average for any random group of 1,000 people on this Planet. Of course, I expect MIT, Harvard, Yale and science majors in general to do better (or, at least as well as) me; but, I never claimed they wouldn't.
My claim has always been that I am in the top few percentage points of the nation in scientific literacy.

Richard
****
As determined not from any professional performance or educational goals met, mind you - just from his ASVAB scores and such... But no, I am the arrogant one....
****

2/22/08

Hi Richard,

The SAT and ACT have changed much in the 24 years since I took them. The scores aren't even comparable between the old, old set and the new.

I took them about 25 years ago, myself. And yes, there is another section now, and the scoring is not the same, but the content IS basically the same. I don't remember anything specifically about scientific literacy in them at all.

BTW, the tests and evaluations of a single college are not a standardized test, so your degree(s) don't show how you compare nationally, either. One simply assumes that a degree from a reputable college means that you are competently knowledgeable in your field, and the better the school's reputation and your placement in it, the better you are. These are not statistical measures.

True, and the SATs, ACTs, etc. are really only indicative of how well one does taking standardized tests. I have seen students with stellar SAT scores flunk out of Introductory Biology, and I have seen students with SAT scores that barely met our minimum standards for admission get straight As. I also had to take the GRE, and I did exceptionally well, and just this past year, I was recruited to write and review questions for the Biology major field test, so I guess I must have done OK...

When you publish my e-mails in your blog--which I figured you would do, whether you told me or not--be sure to mention that I challenge the average layman to take a test of general scientific literacy, covering all fields of science.

"Legally" I could have put your emails on my blog without your consent, but I would have paraphrased them had I not informed you, and had you insisted that I do not post them, I would not.
You may score above the average layman on these mythical tests, but so what? It is not the opinions of average layman that determine the 'truth' or 'falsity' of something, any more than the opinions of laymen dictate whether or not evolution occurred.
When I have a clogged sink, I call a plumber. When something is wrong with my car, I take it to my mechanic. When I have a question about evolutionary biology, I ask an evolutionary biologist. What I do NOT do is seek out an average layman who boasts of doing well on standardized tests.
That is not arrogance, that is common sense.

I guarantee, I will score better than average for any random group of 1,000 people on this Planet. Of course, I expect MIT, Harvard, Yale and science majors in general to do better (or, at least as well as) me; but, I never claimed they wouldn't. My claim has always been that I am in the top few percentage points of the nation in scientific literacy.
Richard

Yes, that is your claim, and it seems arrogant and at best specious, based on the 'tests' you referred to and is irrelevant in regards to the "problems" with evolution. What would be more impressive to me is a demonstration of understanding the relevant science at a level necessary to render relevant opinions. For example, on a discussion board I used to frequent, a creationist claiming to possess a doctorate in mathematics once presented what he described as a major problem for evolution, the "no new information" assertion. His entire premise was a quote, a link, and an assertion about how evolution 'can't explain it'.
I asked him to define information in the relevant context. No answer. I asked him to explain why this was a problem. No answer. I asked him to explain how it was he knew that his creationist source's claims had merit. No answer.
There are a multitude of such examples. It is in part why boasts of 'scientific literacy' and the like are irrelevant and pitiful in this so-called debate.
Take care,
Dop
****
2/22/08


"You may score above the average layman on these mythical tests, but so what?"

So, that was essential to the point I was making when I wrote the statements you originally quoted. I wasn't claiming any advanced degrees or super-science or anything like that. I was claiming just what I stated; that, despite proven scientific literacy, evolutionists insist that my rejection of evolutionary origins of humans means that I know nothing about science. But, you are not the first evolutionist to insist that my statement meant that I was assuming false credentials. For reasons that I do not understand, evolutionists have demonstrated a complete incapacity for comprehending the meaning of my statement, even after I explain it to them. That's why I did not try the first few times you wrote. I guess evolutionists really don't care what I say; they want sound bites they can use for their own propaganda.

"It is not the opinions of average layman that determine the 'truth' or 'falsity' of something"

My doctors have been pretty well educated people. From time to time, one of them will give me medicine that makes me ill. It is my job to decide whether to continue taking the meds the docs prescribe or not. And, you know what? Those experts aren't always right. In fact, sometimes--quite often, in fact--they prescribe meds that are inappropriate or even lethal. Biology is an immature field of study. It has been jokingly stated that Biology is a science degree for people who are bad in math. I am not going to get too worked up over what any biologist claims, especially about distant events that he cannot actually witness taking place.

"What would be more impressive to me is a demonstration of understanding the relevant science at a level necessary to render relevant opinions."

You do realize that my quotes were taken from a movie message board, right? I mean, this wasn't a science paper or a debate society or even a science forum, as inadequate as that would be. This was the comment section of a movie website.

You must be a lot of fun at parties.

Richard
****
2/25/08

"You may score above the average layman on these mythical tests, but so what?"

So, that was essential to the point I was making when I wrote the statements you originally quoted. I wasn't claiming any advanced degrees or super-science or anything like that. I was claiming just what I stated; that, despite proven scientific literacy, evolutionists insist that my rejection of evolutionary origins of humans means that I know nothing about science. But, you are not the first evolutionist to insist that my statement meant that I was assuming false credentials. For reasons that I do not understand, evolutionists have demonstrated a complete incapacity for comprehending the meaning of my statement, even after I explain it to them. That's why I did not try the first few times you wrote. I guess evolutionists really don't care what I say; they want sound bites they can use for their own propaganda.

Your statement spoke for itself - it was a means of trying to puff yourself up as if your amazing feats in standardized test taking put you on par with those who have spent years of their lives studying and researchinhg particular subjects. No sense trying to minimize that now. As far as propaganda goes, well, I've been perusing your website, and you seem to have a pretty good lock on that. The exchanges with Dave were very infromative - I'll bet you think you came off pretty well in that exchange, don't you?
I found this statement: "Just because I disagree with your world view does not mean I am ignorant."
Pretty funny, given the context.

"It is not the opinions of average layman that determine the 'truth' or 'falsity' of something"

My doctors have been pretty well educated people. From time to time, one of them will give me medicine that makes me ill. It is my job to decide whether to continue taking the meds the docs prescribe or not. And, you know what? Those experts aren't always right. In fact, sometimes--quite often, in fact--they prescribe meds that are inappropriate or even lethal. I know - I've taught doctors. What does that have to do with a layman's opinions having relevance in technical scientific issues?Biology is an immature field of study. It has been jokingly stated that Biology is a science degree for people who are bad in math. I am not going to get too worked up over what any biologist claims, especially about distant events that he cannot actually witness taking place. Of course. Because only events that can be observed in the here and now are relevant.

Like the Resurrection, or Creation, for example.
As for math, well, our program here requires up through calculus. I did not have to take calculus when I was in school, but I aced statistics and everything up to that.

"What would be more impressive to me is a demonstration of understanding the relevant science at a level necessary to render relevant opinions."

You do realize that my quotes were taken from a movie message board, right? I mean, this wasn't a science paper or a debate society or even a science forum, as inadequate as that would be. This was the comment section of a movie website.


Yes, I do realize that. But a simple search showed me your website. And frankly, the ONLY thing of yours I read from the review site was what I presented to you. But your exchange with Dave has only cemented my initial impression.

You must be a lot of fun at parties.
Richard

Actually, I am, but I fail to see any relevance in writing such a thing.

****
Richard goes full-bore creationist on me:
****

2/25

You confirm what I said the last time; regardless of credentials, education, experience or test scores, you are determined to say whatever you must in an attempt to discredit creationists. But, my statement still stands; I am more scientifically literate than the majority of people (including evolutionists) on this Planet. However, your arrogance and hostility is of the type that I only see from atheists.
Richard
****
3/13/08


Richard,

I am hurt. And confused. The only creationist I discussed at all was... YOU.
You HAVE no credentials of relevance, you HAVE no relevant education or experience, and the test scores you boast of, you misrepresented and they are irrelevant, to boot. I guess you are so mad at me because I was not prone to swooning over your amazing high school standardized test scores - forgive me for not being impressed.

As for arrogance and hostility, well, YOU are the one that seems to think that because you did well on some teenage tests that your opinion is a major blow to evolution; YOU are the one that engaged in unwarranted insults.
So, I guess I'd have to mention the glass houses cliche at this point. I am thinking of delving into your exchange with Dave from Princeton. Your reliance on similarly underqualified professional creationists as your sources of information says much, but it could be fun if I have the time.

Bye.
****

Last exchange thus far.

***************************************************************************

UPDATE

Pooua responded:

You are the one who chose to make a major issue of a simple factual statement that I made on a movie rating forum. 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).
You are the one who had to hunt me down just so you could tilt at your perceived monsters. For someone who claims to hold advanced science degrees, you are incredibly immature, irrational and clueless. I say again, I know a lot more science than the average, evolution-indoctrinated person does, 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. 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.
There are creationists who hold professional credentials, even some in the biological fields. It seems to me that you ought to be writing to them.
Richard

********

Wow. I ask the reader to peruse the previous exchanges and ask yourselves if Richard's hostility and indignation are warranted, and if his interpretation of the exchanges is accurate.

More later.

Sally Kern - Why Southern Christian Conservatives should never be elected to office

This... creature... is repugnantly ignorant and evil....



And the worst part - people actually vote for her and support her.

Jonathan Wells - incompetent (liar?) for the Rev. Moon

Jon Wells, Senior Fellow with the Discovery Institute, has once again churned out some ignorant bilge on an issue he knows nothing about - science. See the smack-downs here and here of his latest idiocy.

On the one hand, I can't blame Wells for engaging in this sort of disinformation. His 10+ year stint as a graduate student at UC Berkely netted him a whopping two whole multi-authored papers on neither of which did he receive top billing (There are rumors - RUMORS only - that he only got his degree there after his department was pressured by a couple of UC Berkely pro-ID heavies and an implicit threat of legal action if his degree was not awarded. I reiterate that therse are mere rumors, however, given the level of discourse Wells seems capable of the fact that he is on a religious mission to 'destroy Darwinism' and the fact that ZERO science has been produced by ID advocates that actually supports ID, I do not have any real reason to doubt the rumors...), and the poor DI has just about nothing to show for all the money it has spent.

What else can the poor sap do?

The sad part is, of course, that there are multitudes of sycophantic hangers-on out there who hang on every word a shill like Wells writes.

***ADDENDUM***
Larry Moran makes some good points...