All-Too-Common Dissent

HEY "Andrew"! Where's your website?

2008-05-12T20:46:00.002-04:00

A few days ago, some chump calling himself "Andrew" left the following comment in response to a post pointing out IDcreationist Sal Cordova's dishonesty:

slp, why do you have to be such an asshole?
I won't say YOU are lying, I just "lack belief" in your claims.

I guess 'Andrew' has a soft spot (or maybe it is a hard spot?) for his little sycophantic buddy Sal Cordova...
Clicking on 'Andrew's' blogger profile, you get a link to this website, The Brites, formerly run by IDcreationist and Baylor engineer Robert Marks, apparently as an attempt at parody or humor or something, which is now defunct. As of just a few days ago, when a particularly obnoxious pro-IDcreationist commenter at the Uncommon Descent blog calling itself 'Galapagos Finch' was 'outed' as being Marks.

And he thinks I am an asshole?

Sorry Bobby - you and your pals Sternberg, Dembski, et al. have got that market cornered.

Not a biologist? Not even a scientist? No biggie - all it takes to 'refute' evolution is a 'few years' of looking into it on your own...

2008-05-09T13:55:00.002-04:00

Or so banker and YEC cultist RK Bentley will have you believe:

OK, so you know that I’ve long since given up on evolution. After looking into
it for a few years, I realize the whole idea is untenable.

Oh, sure. Thats all it takes. A few years of looking into it... So, if I look into the bible for a few years and conclude that it is nonsense, my conclusions are valid, too?

His 'biography' on the right hand side of his blog says it all, really:

I don't believe evolution; it's that simple. I do believe in the account of
creation as described in Genesis. On this blog, I will discuss arguments 1) for
creation, 2) against evolution, and 3) the social/political topics surrounding
the issue.
Any aspect of the evolution/creation debate is fair game.
I'm not a scientist so please don't expect lengthy, technical
posts. These are intended for consumption by the ordinary person. But
though my posts may not be technical, I take great care to insure they are
accurate.
Rest assured I will gore many of the sacred bulls of staunch
evolutionists. I've donned my extra-thick-skin to prepare for the
insults soon to be directed at me. My objective though, is not to simply cast
aspersion but to change minds.
Your feedback is welcome. Honest, sincere questions may be the subject of
future blogs. Red Herrings will be dealt with appropriately. Insults will be
ignored for the most part - except perhaps to be used as examples of the lack of
substance in many evolutionists' arguments.

Humble, these people are not.
Of course, we shouldn't expect there to be much 'debate' on his blog - he moderates comemnts and seems to ignore the substantive comments he does let through.

Typical.

If it is enough to 'convict' Haeckel, it should be enough to 'convict' Dembski et al.

2008-05-08T15:22:00.006-04:00

Ernst Haeckel, of "Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny" fame, gets pretty rough treatment from creationists and Intelligent Design advocates. Essentially, Haeckel embellished his drawings of embryoes to make his particular hypothesis seem more 'right' - 130+ years ago. Textbooks often use his drawings (or renditions of them) to illustrate certain points. Time was, they were used to support his hypothesis. Now, they are generally used to demonstrate an historical example of rushing to judgement. Actual pictures of embryoes are more often used now, when they are available, and demonstrate that while Haeckel's original claims were not entirely correct, vertebrate embryoes do, in fact, bear striking resemblances to one another, especially early in development.

But this is only part of the story.

The rest is that creationists and their kind use this as an example of, among other things, how evolutionists supposedly lie to support their theory; how shoddy evolutionist scholarship is, since many textbooks still use the photos (they usually don't talk about HOW they are used); etc. They like to villify Haeckel and in the process, find evolution as a theory 'guilty' by association.

Now, let us consider another, shall we say, inaccurate representation of a biological entity, used to promote a paricular hypothesis.

This particular entity is represented as a perfectly symmetrical machine-like structure. Its parts are invariably shown intertwining with intricate precision. When animations of it working are produced it is always shown operating smoothly and precisely. In the presentations of IDcreationists, it looks like this:

Note the manafactured appearance of its parts - smooth, perfect angles, beautiful engineering, right? Well, that is the intended effect. What does one of these things REALLY look like?

Well, not quite like that.

Here are a few examples:

from Shahid Khan, Imran Humayun Khan, and Thomas S. Reese, 1991; "New Structural Features of the Flagellar Base in Salmonella typhimurium Revealed by Rapid-Freeze Electron Microscopy." Journal of Bacteriology 173:2888-09

Here is a 3-D model of the hook region as determined from molecular content:

Not quite the structures the IDcreationists like to present as their 'designed' argument, is it? No smooth interlocking subunits, no washer-like flat plates, etc.

The closest one can come to the stylized IDcreationist version is this:

But that is actually a composite picture, not an actual micrograph.

Of course, even if it did look just like that, we have to remember the scale we are looking at. The above structure is very, very small (less than 100 nanometers across - that is, less than 100 billionths of a meter), and when you get to this scale, molecules can only go together so many ways.
I remember the first time I saw a micrograph of a T7 bacteriophage I thought to myslef, 'That looks man-made.' Why? All those angles, those 'legs', etc. After some reading, however, I discovered that its shape is just the result of the interactions of the proteins that make it up. The shape is a byproduct of this interaction not a plan.

Anyway...

Why should the unrealistic portrayals of the flagellum by ID creationists NOT be considered just as 'dishonest' and those that use it to sway opinion not just as worthy of vilification as Haeckel was when he embellished his drawings?

Are people like Behe, Dembski, Nelson, Wells, etc. not doing the same thing Haeckel did? I would argue what they are doing is WORSE than what Haeckel did - it is likely that the optical quality of the microscopes of Haeckel's time lent to his 'embellishments' (think 'canals on Mars'), while the IDcreationists of today know full well that fancy, colorful computer-generated idealized/sytlized models are inaccurate representations, but they just keep on using them.

Why the double standard?

Why do these self-proclaimed Christians so readily - eagerly - engage in such deceptive practices?

*Hat tip to Monado at Science Notes...., and for other information to Mark Perakh at TalkReason.

What does a ceationist blogger do when one questions his claims regarding something he clearly knows little about?

2008-05-01T12:02:00.003-04:00

Why, he labels your posts "trolling", of course. And throws in an accusation that you are nto doing your homework, to boot.

Next step? Censorship... I can't wait!

See it all going down here. Some of you might find the blogger's name familiar - Collin Brendemuehl.

Here is how it is going so far, blog commments only (I've omitted comments by anyone but myself and Brendemuehl for brevity). What Brendemuehl wrote is in italics:

Are there 10 million random genetic changes needed to take place from, say, an ancient little rodent to today's human? Just a round figure for the sake of argument.

Why not use a rational number instead of one that you pulled form thin air, most likely as a means of 'proving' what you already "believe"? You say you present the 10 million figure just for the sake of argument, but do you really think that there are 10 million substantive trait differences between a mouse-like rodent and a human? What are they? Can you make a list of, say, 1,000?My bet is that you cannot do even half that before you start repeating yourself.

So do you really think that you can find a major genetic trait shift (on average) every 6 generations? Hardly. There is not enough time!

When you establish unrealistic ground rules, of course your results will
look silly. That was your intent, was it not?

Let's try another route: Lucy is 3.9 million years old and (again, for the sake of argument) pretty close to human structure. That means very few changes from Lucy to today and a greater number of generational changes from Yucatan to Lucy. Again, not enough time!

A baseless assertion devoid of logic or rationale, and premsied on a totally fabricated foundation. Wonderful argumentation!
9:40 AM

Doppelganger said...
Collin writes:It is a hypothetical.But I don't see any reasonable way to get the number of trait changes in a mere 1000.

I had asked you to name 1000 of the millions of changes you believe exist. You did not even try. You see no 'reasonable' way to get a human rom a rodent in 1000 trait changes, but you ave not even explained what you mean by trait. You are just tossing big numbers around as if they mean something. And what ARE the trait changes you speak of, and how many mutations would it take to produce them? You seem to know. You think that there are 'millions' of trait changes between humans and rodents, yet you cannot even list a few of them. I was not saying that there ARE 1000, I was asking if you could actually list 1000 of the millions you say exist.

10M is not an unreasonable hypothetical figure when you talk about the complexity of genetics.

10 M what? Trait changes? Please explain what you mean by a trait. But sure, let us talk about the complexity of genetics. I just taught the genetics unit in my anatomy class this past week. Again I ask - How many mutations are requred to produce specific trait changes, as you call them? Do all trait changes require the same number of mutational changes? I fail to see why 10 M mutations is a 'reasonable amount' devoid of any rationale or explanation. Oh - and are we talking about fixed beneficial mutations, or phenotype-altering mutations in general?

But it's also not simple changes -- there is not a simple path from rodent to human. There are gene combinations and all sorts of other hypotheses related to these processes. Throw in natural selection and you add more possibility for loss.

Of course it is not simple. There is nearly no limit to what direction an evolutionary process could take. But human from rodent was not a goal. In fact, there is NO goal at all. What we see is simply what happened.

That's a field in which you are apparently strong. But for the sake of *your* position let's say it's a mere 1M. That's still a real change every 60 generations, which is also outside the scope of common Darwinian and neo-Darwinian calculations.

Please show some of these 'neo-Darwinian' calculations you speak of. Where did you get your generation numbers from? You will need to establish, in order for your positon to have any merit, at the very least:
1. How many trait differences in 'kind' and not degree there actually are e.g., changes in the density of hair on the skin is a difference in degree, hair from no hair is a difference in 'kind'; differences in degree can be caused by neutral variation and other non-beneficial changes).

2. How many mutations would have been required for each such change.

It would also be helpful to know the population sizes involved and the generation times of the ancestral groups, but 1 and 2 above are the bare minumum that your position must have in order to be taken seriously at all. Simply 'not believing' it is insufficient.

Again, the numbers, even your more modest numbers, don't seem to add up.

I'm sorry - I provided no numbers. YOU did.

Now, if you enlighten me (the post was clear about my wish to hear a real alternative (see paragraph 2), I'm all ears. But make it realistic, please.

An alternative to what?I am unsure why a greater requisite for realism is placed on me when your numbers appear to have been pulled from thin air and to be premised not on any knowledge of genetics, but on an awe of large numbers. Rodents diverged from the rest of the placental mammals some 80 million years ago (depending on the source and the specific branching pattern employed, between 55-125 MYA). In terms of real anatomy and physiology, there is relatively little in terms of 'new' traits that primates possess that rodents do not.If there really are 10 M 'trait changes', what are they? And why is 80 odd million years not enough time?You cannot just toss out numbers and call it an argument.
6:57 PM

Doppelganger said...
Collin writes:
I'm wanting to see "the work" where the number of necessary changes are clarified and the changes are identified.

That does not appear to be what you wrote in your blog post. YOU presented numbers of changes, YOU should identify them and then explain how many mutations would be required to produce them. It is YOUR argument.

That is why I raised a hypotheticall and asked for a clarification as to the reliability of such an estimation.

I'd say that the 'estimation' is orders of magnitude off. It is folly to claim that there are some certain number of traits to account for when no real definition of 'trait' is provided or suggested.

My assertion is for the purpose of gaining clarification. I'm *wanting* someone to show any real or apparent error and not just say that it's wrong.

Why is pointing out the wrongness wrong? I do not pretend to know exactly how many trait differences there are between humans and a rodent ancestor in part because I do not know what traits the rodent ancestor possessed. Do you?
But I do not feel that unless someone proves me wrong, I can make any assertion I want to on the subject. Human and mouse genomes differ by some 60%, 10x the difference between humans and chimps. This number is right about what would be expected had humans and mice diverged for a common ancestral population about 75 MYA ( see http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/305/5683/525.pdf). So what exactly are you looking to get corrected on specifically?
7:14 PM

Doppelganger said...
Collin writes:
You asked me to name 10M changes?

Do you read the things you reply to? I ask in all sincerity, for I specifically asked - and later reiterated - if you could name 1,000 of the 10 M you proposed. I don't think that is too much to ask.

How many gene changes for walking upright?

Good question. Do you know? If not, it seems to me that tossing out numbers like 10 M are just BS.

For arms, hands, size, shape, intellect.

Do mice not have arms? Hands (as such)? This is why I asked about
differences in kind and not degree. Mouse forepaws have the same basic skeletal structure as a human hand does, just in different proportions and a slightly different configuration. How many mutations did it require to get a mouse-like forepaw to a human-like hand? Couldn't tell you, but personally, I would not feel comfortable tossing out numbers if I did not have a good reason to do so.

The minimalist approach of classic Darwinism is inadequate.

So you say, but do you really think just making things up is adequate?
Allow me to provide an example of why I do not believe some enormous number of beneficial mutational changes are required to alter the basic vertebrate body plan. I do not present this as an example of evolution, nor as an example of a beneficial mutation. I merely present it as an example of how small genetic changes can produce large phenotypic differences. There is a gene in humans that encodes one of the receptors for fibroblast growth factor. This particular gene is called FGFR-3. A single point mutation in this gene that alters an amino acid produces a form of achondroplasia (dwarfism). This is not a developmental 'programming' gene like the HOX genes, it is just a gene for a receptor that would be found on certain types of cells.
Yet this mutation produces disproportionate limb growth, reduction in the number of interphalangeal joints, and characteristic facial features. All from one little single nucleotide change. Now imagine what sorts of changes could occur as the result of minor changes in genes associated with, say, pelvis formation or neocortex growth. There is a big difference between gross genome structure changes and the acquisition of beneficial mutations.
8:21 AM

Doppelganger said...
Collin writes:
We know that "arm" is not a simple 1-gene change. You have bone
structure, muscle structure, vessel structure, valves, everything including the
attributes of strength, size, shape, color, etc., with the various nuances of
each such as thickness, cell structure, etc.

I guess you missed the very informative point in my last reply - a single
point mutation in one gene altered ALL of those things in the limbs and head of the individual. You do NOT, in fact, need specific mutations to alter every part of a limb. That is just naive folk science.

Set up a chart and you'll see that 1000 is a very small
number.

A chart of what?

These things, it is proposed, came very gradually over millions of years. I'm merely suggesting that the proposed amount of time is inadequate.

I know, and you have offered exactly ZERO rationale, evidence, of
explanation for your position. You just toss out a huge number and say that there is not enough time. Sure you obliquely refer to some 'Darwinism calculations' or whatever it was, but you don't say what those are even after I asked for clarification. Your implied position on the apparent need for mutations for each and every part of an arm, for example, is not premised on any real understanding of genetics or development, rather a 'folk science' belief about how genes and organisms operate. You will continue to 'disbelieve' in the issue until you actually make an attempt to understand what it is really about.

Classic Darwinism is based on observation and, as I said, is
simplistic. The use of molecular biology is neo-Darwinian.

I see no relevance to anything for that statement.

It seems counter-productive to evolutionary biology to propose radical
changes from single genes instead of long, slow changes as the theory
supposes.

Did you even try to understand the points I made? You might be better
off getting your information on genetics, development, and evolution from actual geneticists and evolutionary biologists than from religious philosophers (Plantinga)and the like. Your replies are disjointed and you do not even attempt to address the details. It is almost as if you don't really want the answers you claim to.
But maybe I am wrong, and you will soon provide a list of trait changes
between the LCA of rodents and humans, how many mutations would have been required to get those changes, etc.
12:31 PM
Collin Brendemuehl said...
Dopple,You refuse to study the material or do the
work. Your trolling is tiresome. Enjoy your week.
5:22 PM

Boonton said...
Pot, Kettle, Black
9:07 AM

Doppelganger said...
Collin comically writes:
Dopple,You refuse to study the material or do the work. Your trolling
is tiresome. Enjoy your week.

How quaint, how creationist. Collin, my doctorate is in Anatomy and Cell Biology and my graduate research was on the molecular evolution of primates. My papers are cited by the Tree of Life web project and one of my papers has been cited more than all of Dembski's and Wells' actual peer reviewed publications combined. That I do not accept your bland, unsupported assertions at face value is not a rational excuse for accusing me of 'trolling' and not understanding the issues. It is not my fault that your ignorance of development and genetics and evolution has led you to propose absurd scenarios and even more absurd 'challenges'. If you feel that labelling my comments as trolling is a good way to avoid admitting that you are in over your head, well, so be it. Pride and hubris seem to be requisite qualities for internet creationists. I took the time to check out your comments on Brayton's and Rosenhouse's blogs, and it would appear that only one of us qualifies as a troll, and it is not me.
If you ever feel able to actually produce valid, meaningful numbers for
your scenarios as opposed to things pulled out of thin air and premised on a poor understanding of biology, or worse, on your understanding of the issues via creationist books and essays, let me know and I will gladly discuss it with you.
Until then, I plan to document this exchange on my blog.
9:32 AM

Lots of irony and hypocrisy in there so far....

Note - Brendemuehl has also accused the other active commenter there of trolling. Apparently, the creationist uses this tactic of labelling and accusing people of trolling when he realizes that he can no longer keep up with the level of technical sophistication sought by his opponants.

Ben Stein is a degenerate moron

2008-05-01T11:54:00.002-04:00

In my opinion, of course.

Stein, whose claim to fame is being the boring guy who said, "Bueller... Bueller" in Ferris Bueller's Day Off and, of course, beinga speechwriter for Richard Nixon, had the following to say about scientists on some silly religious program, in an interview with televangelist Paul Crouch:

Stein: When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers
[i.e. biologist P.Z. Myers], talking about how great scientists were, I was
thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them
what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed … that
was horrifying beyond words, and that’s where science — in my opinion, this
is just an opinion — that’s where science leads you.
Crouch:
That’s right.
Stein: …Love of God and compassion and empathy leads
you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing
people.
Crouch: Good word, good word.

Ben Stein, you are an idiot.

Cordova, up to his dishonest antics... as usual...

2008-04-08T13:19:00.002-04:00

I came across a couple of examples (not new things, just old things I hadn't seen before) of creationist Slavador Cordova's sickeningly dishonest antics today.

In one example, he shows up and posts a response to a post on Mark Chu-Carroll's blog which has been inactive for over a month, and when, 2 days later, nobody had replied, he trumpeted it on a creationist blog as some sort of victory.

The other example - well, many examples, actually - are in a series of exchanges at the Panda's Thumb. If you can stomach such things, check out 'Slimy Sal's' sickening sleaze-fest...

Creationists like Cordova do not seem to have any decency or honesty at all.

From their silly and spurious attacks on someone who died over 100 years ago...

Apparently such operations were too much for Darwin’s feeble brain, but perhaps I should not make light of the fact Darwin was not well endowed with the kind of mind like that of mathematician Bill Dembski who could make such calculations in his sleep.
...It would appear then, Darwin did not have as much brain power as Bill Dembski, Jonathan Wells, nor even lil’ ole me. That’s pretty pathetic...
So, I’ll kindly remind my critics that if they view me as an imbecile, by way of
inference, in light of Darwin’s math skills, Darwin was an even greater imbecile. And that’s pretty pathetic if a YEC has substantially more brain power than Charles Darwin….

as if Darwin's math skills had anything at all to do with his collecting and interpreting evidence, something that the 'math genius' creationists Cordova all but gets an erection over could not do with the help of a tutor.

...To their unwarranted elevation of the status of their fellow creationists:

outlined the basic mathematical reasoning here (inspired by YEC Cornell Professor and renowned geneticist, John Sanford):

'Renowned' geneticist? Here's the funny thing about that - He is known for breeding raspberries or something, and has a few patents, not for any groundbreaking research. He is also a young earth creationist. He is only renowned in the minds of drooling sycophantic liars like Cordova.

One should wonder why 'Christians' like Cordova engage in thses deceptive and dishonest practices.

Salvador Cordova and Frank Tipler, morons for Christ

2008-04-01T12:45:00.002-04:00

This is too much... A religious physicist (Tipler) writes something really stupid, and a creationist zealot (Cordova) hails it as amazing!

See for yourself:

For starters, Tipler observes that the Shroud of Turin has DNA on it consistent
with an XX male, which would suggest a virgin birth! He has some other really
cool ideas for examining the rocks near the tomb of Jesus for traces of specific
kinds of sub-atomic events. He details his research in Physics
of Christianity..

So, I have to wonder - did Tipler the theoretical physicist, whose good buddy and sometimes co-author John Barrow once declared that biologists are not scientists, do much "research" on basic biology? Or don't super-duper smart theoretical physicists with creationist leanings have to bother with actually undetrstanding that sort of thing when they write silly pro-religion, pseudoscience books?

Here's a clue for you two wizards - a human with two X chromosomes is a female.
XX = female

Granted, there is a rare syndrome in which a male can be XX (XX male syndrome), but this is a defect - the result of abnormal crossing-over during meiosis. It results in sterility, abnormal penis and teste development, gyneconmastia, and effeminate characteristics. Does Tipler really want to claim that about his Lord and Savior?

Not to mention that original reports state that XY blood was found, not XX (and if it hjad been XX, how could they tell it had been a male?). Why would it matter?

Well, if Jesus was really born of a virgin, according to Tipler's folk biology/theology, He would have had to have been XX, since Mary would have been XX, and the only outcome of this is an effeminate, gynecomstic infertile man with an abnormal penis and small testes.

All Hail the Son of God!

And Cordova, the BS in physics/engineer creationist, while not enthusiastic about it, reports on it favorably... Anything for the cause, I suppose.

This site goes into more detail on Tipler's nutty claims, including providing this somewhat comical quote from his XX-Jesus chapter:

The full results of the DNA testing of the Shroud were published, he [Tipler] says, in an obscure Italian journal, which included "a computer output of the DNA analyzer."

A computer output of the DNA analyzer... Hmmm.... That is a bit like someone describing a picture taken through a telescope as "an optical output of the far-away object viewer."

Amateur...

Conservatives: Monumentally stupid or monumentally dishonest?

2008-03-27T11:54:00.002-04:00

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

2008-03-26T12:21:00.003-04:00

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!

2008-03-22T12:26:00.003-04:00

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

2008-03-14T10:06:00.003-04:00

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

2008-03-11T09:32:00.006-04:00

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!

2008-03-10T15:56:00.005-04:00

*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

2008-03-10T15:50:00.001-04:00

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

2008-03-04T09:44:00.004-05:00

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...

Caroline Crocker: Victim of the Darwinist Establishment?

2008-02-24T14:34:00.003-05:00

Or dishonest creationist hack?

Crocker is featured in the upcoming anti-evolution movie Expelled which purports to demonstrate the callous disregard for scientific truth by the 'Darwinian establishment' and how terrbily those who dare to tell the truth get treated. Crocker was an adjunct biology lecturer at George Mason University and her contract was not renewed. She blamed Darwinism. Her reviews* say something else.

She is also writing a book (aren't they all?) about intellectual honesty in science.

Which is very ironic, considering that she has a hisory of engaging in patently intellectually DIShonest hackery in her 'attacks' against 'Darwinism.'

'Tiny Frog' has a very nice write up in which the depths to which 'intellectually honest' Crocker will go to prop up her fantasies. Seems Crocker gives these 'anti-Darwin' lectures, and her slide show was unwittingly made available on the web (now unavailable, I suspect). She makes some, shall we say, interesting claims in her intellectually honest pursuits. Some gems follow...

Darwin was a "rich kid" who enjoyed "partying","gambling", and "drinking."

Not sure what the evidence - or relevance - of that is. But the IDcreationist crowd does seem to favor the cult of personality, and so attacking Darwin to them is the same as attacking evolution which is the same as propagandizing for Jesus, so it is all good.

'Birds' were found in the same 'layer' as the Archaeopteryx fossil was, and that there was only one such fossil. (there are at least eight, and no, modern birds are not found in contemporaneous strata)

Eohippus (fossil primitive horse) is the same as the modern day Hyrax. Not sure where that bizarre nonsense came from. I suspect it came from Eohippus' former name, Hyracotherium, which means 'hyrax-like beast.' Here is a picture of a reconstruction of Eohippus fossil bones:

And here, a hyrax skeleton:

I report, you decide - shouldn't a biologist (even a molecular biologist) be able to tell the difference? Or does Crocker just rely on the fact that her target audience will not and even if they did, they would not care?

On just two slides of her presentation, one can find innuendo, nonsense, incompetence/dishonesty - and she and her followers want America to believe that the reason that she can't seem to keep a job at a college is because The (Darwinian) Man is keeping her down?

AND she is writing a book pontificating on "intellectual honesty"?

Should Crocker have been 'expelled'? You bet. But not because she 'went against orthodoxy' in teaching the garbage she did, but instead, for incompetence and spreading disinformation.

*Reviews from her next teaching gig show much more of the same...

Surprised? Not me....

2008-02-20T12:42:00.002-05:00

ANOTHER Republican hypocrite is arrested:

GOP's McKee Resigns After Home Is Searched

This time, it is an anti-child exploitation legislator caught with - yup - child pornography.

Oh sure, he's embarrassedand all, and he is seeking the 'prayer' of his family and firends.

I guess all the praying he surely used to engage in didn't help.

Now mind you, this is not meant to indicate that all non-Republicans are fine people, but it is to remind us of the sheer hypocrisy of many such folk.

We have anti-gay activist Larry Craig caught soliciting sex from a man in an airport.
We have 'Book of Values' crusader Bill Bennet admit to a million-dollar gambling problem.
We have Mr. Family Values - thrice divorced Rush Limbaugh going to the Dominican Republic - a place known for it's underage male prostitutes - with a bottle of mislabeled Viagra.

And so on..