Tammy Bruce's recurring theme

Flicking through the channels last night, I stumbled across a talk being given by Tammy Bruce on 'Youth and Conservatism' at, perhaps, the Reagan Library (I only watched about 10 minutes of it and the location was mentioned, but I did not take note of it, though she did mention the 'several beautiful' pictures of Reagan in the room). I usually don't stop to watch the 'talks' on CSPAN, but I heard something that caught my attention - something about how 'professors' were trying to intimidate conservative students into keeping quiet.

Being a professor, and knowing that in none of my classes does anything political typically come up and knowing that I certainly wish MORE students would speak up during discussions, I thought I'd give this 'talk' more than my usual 30 seconds. The talk was a bit rambling and disjointed, but the gist was that 'liberal' professors were trying to quash conservative ideas; socialism is responsible for all genocides in history; liberals have a deep self-loathing and hatred for this country and all people, including themselves; conservatives are really the majority in this country; liberals want to force conformity on everyone; liberals want to silence those with differing views; etc. OH, and if you didn't think socialism was bad enough already, she took great pains to point out that Hitler was in the National SOCIALIST Worker's Party, therefore, Hitler was clearly a leftist.

And that was just in the 10 minutes or so that I could stomach. I found a number of the claims contradictory, wholly unsupportable by facts, and, frankly, pretty stupid and not at all reflective of anything I have experienced. It seems a common theme for conservatives to attack academia like they do - they don't want their conservative youth to actually realize that not everyone conforms to their ideology, after all - claiming that professors are intolerant liberals and the like. And so many conservatives claim to have been victims of this. Now, I can certainly see that there are classes in which the professor might be a liberal and might express their beliefs, say, certain English classes, Political Science classes, maybe some Philosophy or History classes. But I think in general, one's political philosophy does not really enter into what one's area of research or teaching is, at least not in my experience. I had one adjunct instructor - in an American Government class - who came right out and stated that he was a liberal and that he had worked with various Democratic politicians and the like, so we all knew exactly where he came from. At the beginning of each class, we had about a 15-20 minute 'current events' discussion (these were classes that met twice a week for about 90 minutes), during which he would bring up an issue and let the class discuss it. He tried at every turn to instill his liberalsim into the class, berating conservative students and embarrassing them into submission... Oh, wait, no he didn't. At worst, he brought up counter-points to the conservative students' typically poorly thought out statements (the class, like society in general, was roughly 30% conservative, 30% liberal, the rest in the middle). Most students said very little. There was one non-traditional (i.e., older) female student that sat in the front row and always had some angry conservative retort to anything said, and two 20-something right-wingers that sat in the back next to me. They always had some snide irrelevant barbs to toss out. I distinctly remember one issue that came up - tax-funded abortions. I believe it was a case in which the military would not pay for an abortion (or would, I don't remember the specifics of that issue), and the non-traditional female student was vehemently opposed to her tax money being used to pay for something she did not believe in. The instructor, playing Devil's Advocate, said, "Well what if I'm a pacifist and I don't want my tax money being spent on the B-1 bomber?" (I think I just dated myself there...). Non-trad just clenched her jaw and stared at him - she had no comeback.. Classic...

So, back to the topic - Tammy Bruce then claimed that she has had atheists come up to her and say that considering the beauty and grandeur of everything around us, it is hard to deny that there is something greater than us out there. Yeah, I'm sure that atheists just walk right up to Tammy Bruce all the time and say such things. Anyway, Bruce was busily spewing her 'people on the left hate themselves' gibberish to a sparsely populated hall - which seemed to be about the size of my living room - when I had had enough. I popped in the newest George Carlin DVD that I had rented and laughed for an hour. The contrast was incredible...

This morning, I got to thinking about this person, whom I had never heard of before, yet supposedly has a syndicated radio talk show (don't they all?) on 160 stations, according to the blurb on the CSPAN screen. So, I did some googling and was amazed to discover her history - lesbian, former NOW president, feminist, that, darn it, just seems to have a problem with minorities... and liberals...

And that is not all - she claims (or at least did in 2003) to be a progressive Democrat! And it seems her 'they hate themselves' schtick is old-hat, too. IN 2003, she was claiming that it was black America that hated itself:

According to Bruce, Cosby and Mfume are part of the Black Elite—people who are “motivated, whether consciously or unconsciously, by a deep-rooted hatred for their country and themselves, which leads them to attempt to destroy the future of their own people and, indeed, everyone else.”

These people have no ethics, no morals, and no sense... And ALL of them seem to have a radio talk show.

Casey Luskin and the junk DNA conspiracy

Creationist lawyer and Discovery Institute propagandist Casey Luskin recently wrote yet another standard conspiracy theory hack-job, this time concerning 'Junk DNA.'
This time, he seems to have a compatriot - an actual researcher who claims to be experiencing suppression at the pro-evolution website The Panda's Thumb. This scientist, Dr. Andras J. Pellionisz, claims that The Panda's Thumb is refusing to print his stories about how "he has personally witnessed how the Darwinian consensus rejected suggestions that "junk" DNA had function" and that "suggestions that "junk"-DNA had function were ignored or rejected by most Darwinian scientists. " Pellionisz alludes to a supposed 'confrontation' of sorts between fellow 'junk DNA' denier Malcolm Simons and some unnamed pro-junk DNA 'darwinists':

How do you think his fellow-Darwinist scientists received his assertion (1987) that "Junk DNA" had a function?

"When I showed the professional geneticists the data, which indicated to me that the 95% non-coding region wasn't junk, and was ordered…The reaction was smiling disbelief at best - you're off your friggin' head and if you're any good at squash - stick to your day job [MJS]"

Note the date - 1987 - it is important.

If we are to believe Luskin and Pellionisz and Simons, 'darwinists' prevented any research from being done on junk DNA and are therefore somehow responsible for the people that have 'junk DNA'-related diseases.

Has the making of a good story. Has the making of spreading all sorts of angry feelings in the populace regarding those wicked 'darwinists' whose mind-schackling worldview prevented groundbreaking research from going forth in order to prop up their ideology.

The problem is - it is utter and total bullshit.

It seems that the whole story is one of self-promotion (primarily by Simons, but not too much less by Pellionisz) and a tendency to gloss over some basic facts. Simons, for example, has the following claim on his company's home page:

Dr Simons pioneered the concept that 'Junk' non-coding DNA could not be 'Junk' because the DNA sequence differences were ordered, and were conserved between humans of the same coding gene type. The ordered sequence patterns marked lengths of chromosomes, including adjacent and remote genes.

Simons pioneered that concept? Not likely... Got a patent onit, yes. Pioneered it? Not so sure.

An uneducated media is no help - in a story in the San Francisco Chronicle in 2002 (at least this is what is claimed at the 'junkDNA' site linked to above) the following statement can be found:

"In a provisional patent application filed July 31, Pellionisz claims to have unlocked a key to the hidden role junk DNA plays in growth -- and in life itself."

So, what does that imply? It implies that it was not until July, 2002, did anyone think 'junkDNA' did anything. That nobody thought there was a role for 'junk DNA' in 'growth and life' - and that it Andras Pellionisz and his radical bunch of compatriots that found it all out. Let's forget, for the moment, that Simons was trying to wear the mantle of 'genius of Junk DNA' for some time prior to that.
Again, this all makes for a wonderful story and plays very well into the hands of the anti-evolution crowd - the suppression of the maverick truth-seeking scientists by the darwinian orthodoxy, poor fellows just looking for the truth and the big, bad, evolutionist machine tells them NO!. But they soldier on in obscurity until they - and they alone - amass such evidence that cannot be ignored anymore, and the Establishment STILL will not give them their due!

But the media like controversey, and by doing such a smidgen of digging, I discovered that this sort of story - that everyone thought junk DNA was all just junk and that anyone daring to suggest it had a function was at best scoffed at - has been around a while. I found an interview with Francis Collins in 2003 in which he was asked about patents involving genes and the like. This exchange is most telling, any emphases mine:

What was known in your view about the non-coding genes, the so called junk DNA back in the early to mid 1980s, was it regarded by most geneticists as mere junk, as meaningless?

Collins: We've known for as long as we've had a decent grasp on human DNA by methods that came along, even before we could sequence it, that there was a lot of repetitive information in the human genome, perhaps half of it was consisting of the bland material that didn't seem to be very information laden. When sequencing came along, we got a much better fix on that and so certainly by 1980 it was quite clear that vast stretches of the human genome were not involved in coding for protein. Furthermore we knew that that could still be useful because information along a chromosome is in fact not independent of its neighbours and way back in 1978, W. Y. Kahn showed that you could measure a place in the non-coding DNA, look at its spelling, and predict whether there was a cycle mutation up stream of that, quite a number of thousands of base-pairs away indicating that while the non-coding DNA might seem not so interesting, it could still carry marker information that told you about what was next door that could be very interesting. And that was generalised by general advances made over the next two or three years by people like David
Botstein, published in distinguished journals and Alec Jeffries in the United Kingdom showed us in 1981 that in fact there was a lot of variation out there between individuals, maybe two or three places every thousand letters in the code where people would differ and that could be useful in terms of tracking what was happening, not necessarily of that particular spelling change but what was downstream or upstream from it that might have a medical consequence. So all of that information was well understood by the mid 1980s.

Did the discoveries made by Malcolm Simons which gave rise to the patents now held by Genetic Technologies, are they widely acknowledged, widely read, widely referred to in the genetic world today?

I don't believe most people were aware of Malcolm Simons' work until fairly recently because of the attention now focussed on this patent application and of course the patent was filed in 1990 and 13 years have really passed before much of anybody that I know was aware of the content of that particular patent which of course was disclosed as soon as the patent issued. So no I don't think scientifically there has been broad recognition of Dr Simons' contribution.

Does that mean that in your view his work was not especially significant, I mean we would have got by without it, would that be fair to say?

It's hard to judge the scientific contribution from reading a patent application, certainly when one looks at the claims of this patent, they are very broad and certainly when one considers the context of the work of many others over the preceding 20 years that breadth appears to many people somewhat surprising. To the extent that Dr Simons published his work in the scientific literature it did not attract a lot of attention which is the usual standard by which we evaluate the contribution to a particular body of scientific knowledge.

It is not like the reporter was convinced of the 'truth' of the spin that Simons and what I think can be called his worshippers has put on it, not at all. It is not like the reporter is asking leading questions, no sir. What it appears to boil down to is that Simons applied for and received a patent regarding 'junk DNA', and because nobody else had done such a thing, he is for some reason seen as a major player in the field and is receiving all manner of recognition that is not really warranted. He was certainly not the only one that thought junk DNA does something. And this can be proven by merely looking here, for just one example:

Cell. 1975
Feb;4(2):107-11.

The general affinity of lac repressor for E. coli DNA: implications for gene regulation in procaryotes and eucaryotes.

By equilibrium competition experiments, the dissociation constant (K(RD)) of lac repressor for E. coli DNA carrying a deletion of the lac operon was measured at a variety of salt concentrations. These data are used in the consideration of several aspects of protein-DNA interaction: Quantitative estimates of specificity are made. Specificity changes only slightly with salt concentration. We calculate that in vivo, 98 percent or more of repressor is bound to DNA predominately at sites other than the lac operator. Inducers shift repressor from operator to nonoperator DNA, but do not free it from DNA. The general affinity of repressor for E. coli DNA is sufficient to support a model where repressor slides along DNA for significant distances. The effective dissociation constant of repressor for operator (K(eff)) is very sensitive to the total DNA concentration. We propose that "junk" DNA in eucaryotes functions to maintain total DNA at an optimum concentration. We consider the lac operon in the nucleus of a lymphocyte, point out that severe difficulties would be encountered, and suggest possible solutions.

Note the date. 1975. A full 12 years prior to Simons' supposed confrontation with genetics researchers who supposedly told him to 'stick to his day job' for suggesting that junk DNA did something as reported by Pellionisz. It is irrelevant as to whether or not the authors were correct in their proposal - the fact is they were considering functions for it in 1975, 3 years after Ohno coined the term 'junk DNA'. It should also be noted that Ohno did not appear to think 'junk DNA' did nothing, rather he was just attempting to describe how he thought it came to be, and he was referring to a particular type of noncoding DNA, not all of it. But don't tell Luskin and pals!

But let us do a quick search to see if Simons deserves the title 'genius of Junk.' A Pubmed search [for "Simons MJ"] reveals a rich publication history going back to the 1960s.
Now Ohno supposedly coined the term 'junk DNA' in 1972 (there is some scuttlebutt that someone else said it at a conference preceding Ohno's claims), and this was the date at which, supposedly, orthodox darwinism shut down research on noncoding DNA. Let's take a look at Simons' post-1972 publications and see which ones reveal his insights into 'junk DNA'...

The first paper I can identify which seems to have anything to do with DNA at all came out in 1984 - 9 years after the paper I cite above (there were earlier ones, but that was the first one with an available abstract), and judging from the abstract, it does not appear to be concerned with junk DNA. The first one I can find that appears to have any implication for functional noncoding DNA, again judging by the abtract, is this one published in 1989, 2 years after his supposed run-in with the orthodoxy-protecting geneticists who insited that junk DNA has no function (there was one other mentioning noncoding DNA, but it was in the context of describing a newly sequenced gene).

Can it still be that Simons is the genius of Junk? That he was the one that proposed/discovered that junk DNA controls things and regulates things and such?

If so, his discovery must have been cryptic, as it seems that Zuckerkandl scooped him, publication-wise, in 1981:

It is proposed that a general function of noncoding DNA and RNA sequences in higher organisms (intergenic and intervening sequences) is to provide multiple binding sites over long stretches of polynucleotide for certain types of regulatory proteins. Through the building up or abolishing of high-order structures, these proteins either sequester sites for the control of, e.g., transcription or make the sites available to local molecular signals. If this is to take place, the existence of a c-value paradox becomes a requirement. Multiple binding sites for a given protein may recur in the form of a sequence motif that is variable within certain limits. Noncoding sequences of the chicken ovalbumin gene furnish an appropriate example of a sequence motif, GAAAATT. Its improbably high frequency and significant periodicity are both absent from the coding sequences of the same gene and from the noncoding sequences of a differently controlled gene in the same organism, the preproinsulin gene. This distribution of a sequence motif is in keeping with the concepts outlined. Low specificity of sequences that bind protein is likely to be compatible with highly specific conformational changes.

Seems Zuckerkandl scooped all the IDcreationists who claim to have 'predicted' function in junk DNA as well...


So, anyway, back to Luskin and his disinformation campaign...

Pellionisz seems to have found a pal in the IDcreationist movement, as he has been cited by Salvador Cordova as an ally. No wonder he decided to confide in Luskin regarding his supposed 'suppression' at Panda's Thumb.


Of course, reality does not stop the ID creationists from, well, lying (or at least embellishing) about the history of junk DNA. In fact, on their slick disinformation site 'researchintelligentdesign' (which, by the way, contains no research), we see claims that it was ID creationists that "predicted" functions for junk DNA that were borne out by research done by... well, not any of them. This page indicates that ID 'theorists' were 'predicting' functions for junk DNA as far back as - get this - 1986! YEARS after there were already publications 'predicting' (and demonstrating) junk DNA functions by evolutionists! Boy, those IDers don't miss a trick! Making predictions in the present about things that had already come to pass - incredible!

Luskin and pals remind me of the castle guard in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, who, after watching Sir Lancelot run across an open field and kill the other guard then proceeds to run through the castle gate, which the guard was supposed to be, well, guarding, calls after him "Hey!"

Troy D. Hailey - another labeling creationist!

Poor old Troy D. Hailey. We remember him - the internet creationist computer programmer that thinks he is smarter than everyone else...

Seems he found out I posted about him, and he's labeled me a stalker.

Not just any kind of stalker - but a psychopathic virtual one! Pretty cool!

Because, afterall, viewing the 'source' of a photograph that HE posted and following the trail is 'stalking'. Which is odd, since he is a super-smart computer programmer and all, you'd think that he would at least try to cover his tracks, if he was so concerned about it. Surley, he knows how? Creationists like to label people. Weird...

But old Troy is right about one thing - he is, most certainly, a "no one."

Or is he? Look at this amazing proclamation:

This attitude explains why ID is eating your (plural) lunch ... I mean, even aside from the painfully obvious fact that at no time going back to 1859 did you 'modern evolutionary theorists' ever have a real scientific theory in the first place. You people seem actually to imagine that you can use governmental force to silence criticism of your anti-rational pretend theory.

WoW! He got us! No scientific theory according to an internet creationist computer programmer! Who else would we ever go to to hear such truths? And the bit about 'governmental force' - gut punch! Because the government should allow religion to be presented as science, that is for sure!

And this lunch-eating... He must be referring to the fact that ID's own journal is chock full of irrefutable science supportive of creationism/ID!
Old Troy, what a card...


And I am so flattered - I am Troy's favorite psychopath!

Do you actually imagine that I am somehow intimidated because you're apparently in contact with my favorite "Darwinist"

LOL!

What a fella...

*update*

It seems that ARN is preventing direct links (or something), so try this:

http://www.arn.org/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=30332343&page=0&fpart=6&vc=1

**UPDATE 7/25**

It seems that Troy "Ilion" Hailey just can't help himself... [scroll about 1/4 way down page 1, also on the second page]

What a great ambassador for Christ, he is...

Speaking of craziness and stupidity

May I introduce:

Ann Coulter






This one is something - Coulter addresses (I think) the Family Research Council's Washington Meeting. Note what passes for 'comedy' in the backwards world of these people. Also note Coulter's revisionism and laughable interpretations re: the constitution... Amazing:





A treasure trove of Ann Coulter stupidity and grotesqueness can be found here.

And one of my favorites:

To put things into perspective

Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about gettingh a blow job from an intern.

Ronald Reagan, for whom it has been claimed - with nearly homoerotic adulation - deserves a spot on Mt.Rushmore, is lauded as the greatest president ever by many despite his and his administration's damage to the American Democracy:

Another Red State Chickenhawk

Courtesy of Crook and Liars:



A good ol' southern boy who "loves" George W. Bush so much that he claims that he would like to be related to him, who unabashedly thinks the war is great, who:

did not serve

claims he is too old to serve (at 31, he still has 9 years)

claims that if we needed more men, he would sign up (the army did not meet its recruiting goals again this month)

thinks, apparently, that he is helping the war effort by accosting a woman whose son was killed in Iraq...

How typical...

Isn't it ironic that a blue state - my adopted home state of Vermont - a commie (Bernie Sanders), gay (civil unions), liberal (Howard Dean), tree-hugger (Ben and Jerry's) state has the highest Iraq war casualty rate per capita in the nation?


Behind only 3 U.S. territories?

Red State home of Bush is down there at #25?

I'm not sure how to describe people like the fellow in the video - those who worship at the altar of Bush, those who think the war is great and necessary and support the invasion of Iran and any other nation that upsets G.W. Bush, yet has not served and will not serve.

Coward seems a bit trite - after all, they are brave enough to accost single moms with combat killed sons and put 'Support the Troops' stickers on their SUVs and call 'librals' "pussies." . Chickenhawk is certainly fitting, but does not convey my real disgust. Any suggestions?

To see more right-wing hypocrisy:




More Right-Wing ChickenHawkism:




Here, 24 year old right-wing punk Ben Ferguson tries to equate his love of the Yankees and not playing baseball with his support for the war but not serving:




There are many more examples, but I think I will end with this:

And, as is almost always the case, Bill Mahar gets it right:

Oh dear, I've been tagged...

The Rev.BigDumbChimp tagged me...

Well, OK, there are some rules:

• We have to post these rules before we give you the facts.
• Players start with eight random facts/habits about themselves.
• People who are tagged need to write their own blog about their eight things and post these rules.
• At the end of your blog post, you need to choose eight people to get tagged and list their names.
• Don't forget to leave them a comment telling them they're tagged, and to read your blog.

The 8 people I am supposed to tag may be a toughie - all the folks I would have done this to have apparently already been tagged, so I might be adding names later...

Anyway - eight random facts/habits about me...

1. I wanted to be a physical therapist until I did some observation/volunteer work at a physical rehabilitation center in Michigan and realized that I did not want to be around people with problems. So, I went to graduate school.

2. I grow a beard in the summer (since I cannot grow one during the school year - military school and all) and I have this semi-obsessive/compulsive habit of plucking out beard hairs that feel out of place.

3. I build and fly (try to, anyway) radio controlled airplanes.

4. Unlike Newt Gingrich, Dan Burton, Ronald Reagan, Rush Limbaugh, and Rudy Giuliani, I have never had an affair and have only been married once. Next month I will be celebrating my 21st Wedding Anniversary (and I'll only be 40!).

5. I did not become an atheist until I actually read the bible at age 20 after my father unexpectedly died. After I read it - from cover to cover - I was nearly dumbstruck by the realization that nearly half the population of this country believes it word for word.

6. I think Karl Popper's ideas were naive and simplistic and have little relevance to the actual process and endeavor of science.

7. My graduate school advisor lived on the corner of Northfield and Oneida streets. I grew up in New York on an Oneida Street, and I now live in Northfield, VT. Creepy, eh?

8. I recently had a 20-year reunion of my old Army unit - Delta Battery, 319th FA, Airborne Battalion Combat Team. Woo hoo!

Names of 8 taggees forthcoming....

More (pseudo)elitism from Bill "Ted Haggard of Information Theory" Dembski

This guy is too much...

Bill Dembski, PhD. PhD., apparently doesn't think people lacking PhD.'s in specific areas or having lesser degrees than he has have no business commenting on things outside of or above their field or level of supposed understanding.

See how he denigrates Richard Wein, after Wein devastates one of Dembski's supposed mathematical arguments, because he has but a B. S. in statistics, while he, Dembski, has a PhD.:

"A word about credentials seems worth bringing up. Richard Wein holds a bachelor's degree in statistics -- that's it. Now, his lack of academic credentials by itself does not undercut his critique -- any work must ultimately stand on its own merits. Yet his lack of formal training should raise a suspicion about his contempt for my knowledge of statistics and probability. I do have the requisite credentials in this field, having a Ph.D. from a good school and having published in this area (my CV is available at
www.baylor.edu/~William_Dembski). NFL was thoroughly vetted by experts spanning a range of disciplines. Moreover, the endorsements appearing with the book are glowing and come from experts in computer science, machine learning,
mathematics, statistics, engineering, biology, biochemistry, physics, and
philosophy (see http://www3.baylor.edu/ ~William_Dembski/docs_books/nfl.htm).
All of the endorsers are more eminent in their respective fields than Wein. How can they think NFL is the best thing since sliced bread and Wein think it is the worst thing since the Lisbon earthquake? One has to wonder if more isn't at stake than just the merit of the ideas."

But watch out if someone dares mention reality - that Dembski has no relevent degrees in many of the things he pontificates on - you get the hero-worship treatment. (via moonman62)

"Please review his CV again. He is a mathematician---the metalanguage of all the sciences---who has a special competence in the Philosophy of Science. Are you saying that some Ph.D. biologist shuffling around in a dusty lab somewhere is a "scientist" and the extraordinary polymath Dembski is not? This is credentialism of the worst sort. I guarantee he can talk polypeptides, or some other biological esoterica, with any biologist living or dead, and write a peer reviewable paper on the subject as well."

Sure - and he can use the simplistic 'DNA is just like the english language anaology' with the best of them... Apparently, polymathery does not include actually being competent in the areas you can 'talk' in.


But I digress...

King Hypocrite is at it again:

"Chu-Carroll names his bog GOOD MATH, BAD MATH: FINDING THE FUN IN GOOD MATH, SQUASHING BAD MATH AND THE FOOLS THAT PROMOTE IT. Perhaps I’m missing something, but Chu-Carroll’s expertise is in computer programming, where he has a Ph.D. How much math does he actually know?"

Clearly not as much as Dr.Dr. Bill 'polymath and mathematical supergenius' Dembski...

It seems that hypocrisy has a face, and that face is the Intelligent Design Religio-Political Movement's Bill Dembski's.

"Intelligent Design" creationist 'logic'

On occasion, I peruse the Discovery Institute's ARN discussion forums. I say on occasion because I can rarely stomach the gibberish there for any length of time or frequency. However, on occasion, the claims made by the Intelligent Design creationists (IDCs, for short) can be both illuminating and entertaining and provide some interesting insights into the inner workings of the IDC mind.

Of late, "JoeG" (Joe Gallien) has been fairly prolific on the ARN board. He was very taken by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richard's book and video "Privileged Planet", and has made many, many internet discussion board, comments, and blog posts "challenging" non-IDCs to see the video and dare to stay a non-IDC.

Anyway, he has recently started a thread at ARN laying out the claims made by Gonzalez and Richards indicating that the earth is "privileged" and therefore, somehow, evolution did not occur, or something. I have pasted a few of the 'facts' that indicate the privileged status of earth below, in lovely lavender, for entertainment value, interspersed with my smarmy comments:

d. Just so happens that our Moon is 400x smaller than the Sun, which is 400x farther away
e. Both with a very circular shape
f. Allows for perfect solar eclipses

Sure, because I guess an imperfect solar eclipse would just be so un-privileged.
And after all, if it were not for total solar eclipses, solar telescopes would never have been thought of, and would never have been able to allow us to discover the things that you can during an eclipse. Because, apparently, if there were no solar eclipses, no human would have ever thought about studying the sun...


g. Confirmed Einstein’s prediction with the 1919 solar eclipse (gravity bends light) when scientists photographed the Stars behind it. We could have only made that discovery during a total solar eclipse.

Yes because, again, if it were not for these perfect eclipses, we would NEVER have been able to observe light being bent by gravity...

i. Observing & studying the Sun’s chromosphere is made possible

Yes, because, again, if it were not for the eclipse, we would never have thought of a way to check out that cool stuff.

b. Clear- allows for good viewing
c. Ours is <1%>
d. Allows in the right kind of light for viewing

These refer to the atmosphere. I guess the "right kind" of viewing is viewing only in the visible spectrum and through an atmosphere known for producing distortions.

b. Great for observing & scientific discovery
9. Location in the galaxy
a. We are between spiral arms
b. Perfect for viewing

Perfect for viewing what? Why, the things we can see!
If we were on the other side of the galaxy, THE EXACT SAME ARGUMENT COULD BE MADE!

What amazes me the most is that these 'arguments' - child-like in their simple-mindedness as they are - were actually considered groundbreaking and irrefutable by two doctorate-degree wielding professionals - one an astronomer (Gonzalez) and a philosopher (Richards), and that so many people - folks like Joe Gallien - are so convinced of the validity of these claims.

First time for everything - A Republican Congressman from Texas with some sense and integrity

I have not been following 2008 presidential politics at all thus far, but I recently came across this clip from a speech on the floor of the House by Ron Paul, a Republican from Texas, who is apparently running for president. The last 30 seconds or so are right on the money.

Notice a trend?

I do.

These maps are from the May 2007 National Geographic. They indicate High School (top) and College (bottom) graduation rates in the United States, comparing the rates in 1950 (on the left in each map) and 2000 (on the right in each map).

The lighter the color, the lower the rate of graduation.

Troy D. Hailey - aka 'Ilion' - EVERYONE'S favorite misunderstood genius

I have written briefly about Troy D. Hailey before - a computer consultant who fancies himself an expert on, well, everything, but especially evolution (claims, as they all do, to have "disptoved" it).

Well, it seems that even his fellow computer programmer-type folks are not very keen on the condescending, arrogant egomaniac.

Seems old Troy didn't dig it that all did not bow down to his superior intellect, and began a flame war of sorts, with the admins and participants at the board trying to decide how best to deal with him:

Chris Maunder wrote:
I'm ready to just close it [the 'soapbox' forum] up


That's what Ilion wants. It seems that most - if not all - of the SoapBoxers are united in their opinion of the Ilion person. What you probably should do is find out who this guy's ISP is and report him for abuse,
and then block the ISP's IP subnet from being allowed to post on CP.

In response to thje above:

John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
That's what Ilion wants


Actually it isn't. What he wants is to be able to post his opinions and have them stay in view and not be voted as abusive. Whether or not his posts are abusive, spam, or even vaguely appropriate is another thing.

My understanding was that people were ignoring him, so he repeatedly started
posting the same thing and THEN they were marked as spam/abuse.

And to see that arrogant 'charm' from old Troy the self-identified 'nobody' (he is so humble...):

Chris Maunder wrote:
Of course you do, as long as you do not abuse the forums or the site.

Mr Maunder, you've giving mixed signals here.

On the one hand, I should "probably just move on" if I want to try to discuss thing rationally/logically, because it's "abusive" (as per community consensus) to identify the illogical arguments/assertions others make.

On the other hand, if I'm not "abusive" (i.e. if I insult other persons right and left, as per community practice), then there is no difficulty.

I gotta tell ya' that's dizzy-making. To me, at any rate.

Wait - there is more (emphasis mine):

Look, most of the really active regulars here go out of their way to express contempt for Christianity and for Christians. And that's ok, I'm not complaining; Christianity can take it. And I can take it, so long as I'm allowed to demolish the so-called arguments.

However, because I am trying to get at the illogic and/or absurdity of so many of the claims and/or arguments put forward on the anti-Christianity side of the ledger, I am apparently "abusive," as per community consensus. It isn't true in fact, and I do not appreciate it.

Now, if 'atheism' and/or 'atheistic' assertions have a privileged or protected status here at CP, I can live with that. As I told you, I came to CP for the programming, not for the Soapbox. However, it would have been nice to know about that special status beforehand.

Because after all, a computer cunsultant expert on everything cannot do anything BUT "demolish" all arguments of those that dare oppose his ideologies...

But, it goes on.. and on...

He's [Ilion] taking you for a ride Chris. If you trace back through the threads, you'll
find he was given ample opportunity to expound his arguments and he declined to
take them. People, myself included, attempted to dispute points with him (despite his sillyness), but it was to no avail. When everyone began to ignore him (and rightly so) that's when he started bombing the forums. Despite his claims and protestations, he was treated no differently than anyone else. The difference was in him refusing to cease his obnoxious behaviour and his blatant disrespect for ALL PATRONS of this forum. On numerous occasions did several others and I ask him to stop yet he continued. I suggest you continue to monitor this forum for the next few days as I don't believe he is being genuine.

And on...

I am not sure what is worse, the constant posts by Ilion, or our response to it.
Some of his messages have been deleted under 10 minutes. They are literally
being removed before I can read them, although they seem to be the same 1 or 2
posts over and over. I don't get what his point is, and I don't get why we don't
ignore him. I don't remember Ilion posting before a week or so ago. He has four
articles (I have not read any) and all of a sudden of deluge of incomprehensible
posts. I think we have all agreed that something is wrong mentally (some kind of
psychotic break?), but do we need to poke the badger with a spoon?

And on...

A thread for Ilion to demonstrate....
his much touted great intellect.
Apparently you believe yourself to be beyond the intellectual capabilities of everyone on this message board. Well, I'm giving you the opportunity to prove it. Answer our questions, the ones that (so far) you refuse to answer. There are many of them, but you seem to believe it acceptable to make flippant statements without having to provide any form of cogent argument. Well, I'm putting you on the spot. Either prove you have something to contribute or finalize that once and for all that you're just here trolling these boards to irritate people and you are not to be taken seriously. Show us you're not a cheap pathetic hack...

It is interesting to note that Ilion did not reply once in that thread...

Hmmmm.....

And then:

He [Ilion] was annoying me because he was intentionally twisting my words.
Having an argument with somebody is one thing. When somebody twists your words
to deliberately misrepresent what you said is another. I have a problem with
liars and hypocrites. I call them out. Ilion knows he's lying and deceitful
because he doesn't respond to my posts. He thinks he's a Christian - but it's
completely obvious he's a hypocrite and a liar. He's less of a Christian than I
am and I'm an athiest.

Oh - you noticed all that, too?

Poor Troy Hailey - he can't even seem to get his fellow computer geeks to be on his side and bow down to his ubermensch status!

Because people like Ilion will just never let things rest. They HAVE to have it "known" that they "won", that they are "right". Even when they are not.

It is interesting to note that on that site, even the conservatives (well, one of them at least) thinks Ilion is a nitwit:

Ilíon wrote:Man, that's jest terrible! Political appointees being treated as political appointees.

Redstateler:
You know, I read that and thought something odd. The "e" key is nowhere near the "u" key on a keyboard, so how could you mistype "just" (as a typo) unless you're so hopped up on acid that you have no control of your fingers.

He is, of course, welcomed with open arms on the ARN 'Intelligent Design' forum - that is the sort of person that makes up the anti-evolution crowd - arrogant, overconfident, bombastic, and above all, underinformed. So, how can these folks deal with the arrogant blowhard?


I have an idea:








Nah - I have a sneaking suspicion that Troy Hailey would enjoy it...

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

Addendum:

Wow... Perusing that forum, we see Ilion acting like... well, Ilion... For those with the patience and stomach for it, you can see one of God's own - and a super genius at that - in action... and NOBODY there seems to dig it:

Stop talking out of your ass. Everyone on this message board is sick to death of
your idiocy. Do everyone a favour for once and shut up.It's painfully evident
that you don't know a thing about science, you just like to run your mouth and
stick quotes around everything. Take your medication. It'll help to make you
more lucid.You can't even address the questions I put to you, because when
confronted head on you balk and hide. You're pathetic, ignorant and an idiot.
That's quite the amazing combination, you should be proud. Not just anyone can
achieve such infamy. Of course, you can always respond to the thread I directed
at you and prove me wrong, but I know you won't because you can't. You're a sad
little man with an inferiority complex. I pity you. If only you had the sense to
realize just how idiotic you are, it would be a blessing for you AND this
message board.

Boy - these folks figured Ilion out, alright!

And Ilion is God's one true messenger... Wow....

Salvador Cordova cites me when being dishonest...

... and the sycophantic simpletons at 'Uncommon Descent' just don't care...

Salvador Cordova is an Intelligent Design Creationist activist with a bachelor's degree in engineering (minor in music) who, like most underprepared creationist activists, fancies himself an expert on nearly everything*. He has argued with professional geologists about mantle plumes, he has argued with anatomists about the impossibility of ribs fusing to the sternum, he has argued with physicists about speed of light decay - you name it, he has argued the creationist position on it. And, of course, never once allowed the possibility that he might, you know, be wrong on anything. Because he is a creationist, and creationists cannot be wrong. Even when they are. But I digress...

Cordova has earned a reputation as a person who plays fast and loose with the facts, and even more so when he is quoting articles of people to try to prove a point. Which is why I linked to his article on Uncommon Descent as just the latest example of his dishonesty. And what is worse, he actually cites me (yes, 'FTK', it irks me, and if you think DS is 'looking good', I think I can conclude that you have pretty low standards), which compounds his dishonesty. I will get to why that is later, but first things first.

His article from May 2nd is titled Darwin dissed by doctors, and a design revolution continues at MIT. It begins with a half-assed attempt to prop up new Discovery Institute blathering creationist nutcake Michael Egnor, whom Cordova adoringly and embellishingly refers to as "One of New York’s foremost brain surgeons", and for whom a new term has been coined - Egnorance.

One of Egnor's big claims is that "Darwinism" is irrelevant to medicine. Cordova wants to support this claim - to prop up his new hero - by referring to [url=http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0050112]this article[/url] from which he quotes:

Charles Darwin, perhaps medicine’s most famous dropout, provided the impetus for a subject that figures so rarely in medical education. Indeed, even the iconic textbook example of evolution—antibiotic resistance—is rarely described as “evolution” in relevant papers published in medical journals. Despite potentially valid reasons for this oversight (e.g., that authors of papers in medical journals would regard the term as too general), it propagates into the popular press when those papers are reported on, feeding the wider perception of evolution’s irrelevance in general, and to medicine in particular

Cordova editorializes in mid-quote, note what I have bolded:

Darwinists claim how important Darwinism is to science, but MacCallum’s editorial makes an embarrassing admission of Darwinism’s irrelevance to medicine. She also reports on the protests from medical students who find themselves forced to study Darwinism for no good reason. In reading the excerpt below, ask yourself, “why is it that a campaign has to be waged to teach Darwinism in science classes.” Do we need campaigns to teach the theory of gravitation or the periodic table?:

Randolph Nesse (University of Michigan) and colleagues think otherwise [2], and have been campaigning for evolution to be recognized and taught as a basic science to all medical students (see also the Evolution and Medicine Network, http://www.evolutionandmedicine.org). It has been more than 10 years since he and George Williams published their classic book Why We Get Sic: The New Science of Darwinian Medicine [3]. Other landmark texts linking evolution to health have been written since then, with new editions on the way [4–6], and the research field is blossoming. Still, as Nesse mentioned at the start of the York meeting, there are only a handful of medical schools in the United States and in the United Kingdom with an evolutionary biologist listed as such on the faculty.…the hardest task in adding evolutionary/Darwinian medicine to medical curricula may well be soliciting support from medical students. Although Paul O’Higgins thought a comparison of the brachial plexus to the pentadactyl limb was helpful, not all his students agreed—complaints were lodged that he was forcing evolution on them

But Cordova opted to stop quoting where he did for good (creationist) reasons, for the paragraph goes on:

But evolutionary medicine isn't and shouldn't be controversial, and the best way to challenge prejudice is through education. As the oft-quoted Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote in 1973, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” [15]. The time has clearly come for medicine to explicitly integrate evolutionary biolog into its theoretical and practical underpinnings The medical students of Charles Darwin's day did not have the advantage of such a powerful framework to inform their thinking; we shouldn't deprive today's budding medical talent of the potential insights to be gained at the intersection of these two great disciplines.

But the shenanigans get worse - the first quote provided above? Well, Cordova decided to stop quoting that paragraph when he got to the last sentence. Why? Here's why:

Yet an understanding of how natural selection shapes vulnerability to disease can provide fundamental insights into medicine and health and is no less relevant than an understanding of physiology or biochemistry.

Yes, quite an "embarrassing admission", eh Cordova?


'Nuff said on that.

The section of Cordova's hack propaganda regarding a 'design revolution' at MIT starts thusly:

In contrast, the design paradigm moves forward at one of America’s most prestigious universities. In Wanted: Biologists who can speak ‘math,’ engineers fluent in genetics [1] we learn:

One-third of the engineers at MIT now work on biological problems, according to Graham C. Walker, MIT biology professor.

He goes on with sickening, self-serving platitudes about how 'important' engineers and computer science is or will be to biology. And that [1] up in Cordova's quote? Well that is this endnote:

[1] (HT: [Doppelganger] at KCFS for the MIT Article)

And why would I have cited an article like that?

Well first, read it yourself:

Wanted: Biologists who can speak 'math,' engineers fluent in genetics

Here is the main reason that I referred to the article in the first place:

Teaching introductory biology to MIT undergraduates, Walker experiences the disciplinary disconnect firsthand. "It's a constant challenge," he says, "to find ways to make biology comprehensible and relevant to students who think like engineers."

Ironically, I was first made aware of the article by a creationist mechanical engineer who, like Cordova, actually seemed to think that the article in some way gave credence to the creationist notion that engineers have some special insight into biology. Had they actually read the article for something other than snippets that, devoid of context, can be employed as ego-boosting material for creationist engineers, they would have seen things like this, from the opening paragraph of the article:

Biologists, computer scientists and engineers speak different languages: Mention "vector" to a molecular biologist and a plasmid (a circular piece of bacterial DNA used in gene cloning) comes to mind. Say "vector" to an engineer, and she thinks of a mathematical concept. Similarly with "expression": To a biologist, it means protein production from a gene; to an engineer, it's an equation.

Try explaining that to a creationist engineer, and you get a load of arrogant gibberish about how their "engineering principles" give them unique ways of looking at genetics and biology in ways that the poor geneticists and biologists just can't comprehend...
Going on, they might have read the following, including this - the sentence that directly follows what Cordova decided to quote:

Yet it can be challenging for biology and engineering students to understand each other.

Or they might have seen one of these:

She told a room packed with MIT students and faculty that "engineering students tend to view biology as magic because they don't see us using differential equations. And often they don't even necessarily want to understand the 'what' of biology--they just want to use it.


So we actually teach biology to engineers using a function-based approach, with the idea of nature as the designer and evolution as the design tool," Lidstrom says. "That's real engineering. And that's the way we feel biology should be taught."

To help her engineering students feel comfortable in this strange new territory...

Hmmmm... biology a 'strange new territry' for engineers... a constant challenge to make biology comprehensible to engineering students... Nature used as the 'designer' with evolution the 'tools'...

Yup... Sure sounds like ID is alive and well at MIT and that engineers are the true authorities in matters biological...


OK Cordova - say, you let me know when that newspaper taxi drops you off under marmalade skies....


********************************************************************************
*Which fits in nicely with this saying:

When you earn a Bachelor's degree you think you know everything
When you earn a Master's degree you realize how little you knew
When you earn a Doctorate, you realize how little everyone knows about everything

and it is also yet another example of the Dunning-Kruger effect

Walter ReMine - egomaniac

Walter ReMine, creationist electrical engineer author of "The Biotic Message", a pathetic attempt to make creationism seem scientific by engaging in "science by quote," has made much of his take on population geneticist JBS Haldane's model for the substitution of beneficial mutants in a population (for a good review of ReMine's book by an actual geneticist, see Gert Korthof's).

ReMine claims that 'Haldane's Dilemma', as his model was inaptly named, when applied to human evolution shows that such evolution is impossible. ReMine never actually gives any good reason, he just plays fast and loose with the facts and engages in unnecessarily verbose rhetoric to con those that understand less than he does.

He has made something of a cottage industry for himself, playing the martyr and victim of the oppressive anti-creation cabal of academia by first trying to publish an amateurish paper on the subject in a legitimate scientific journal (which was rejected for its unoriginality and its non-academic style - oppression I tells ya!) , declaring that apparently only he - the great Walter ReMine, understands Haldane's dilemma, and now by claiming that evolutionists are "suppressing" information on the subject.

ReMine writes:

For many years I have publicly claimed Haldane's Dilemma is a major unsolved problem for evolution. A problem so severe it threatens macroevolution as a "fact" and evolutionary genetics as an empirical science. Toward a solution, evolutionary geneticist, Leonard Nunney, published a paper reporting his computer simulations. He claimed his computer simulations show rates of beneficial evolution much faster than the Haldane limit. While evolutionists (including Nunney) have never discussed my work in ink, their Internet activists now cite Nunney's computer simulation as a definitive refutation of my position.

There is a good reason actual scientists have not discussed ReMine's "work" in ink - it was never puiblished 'in ink' (it was self-published as a non-reviewed book).

ReMine refuses to acknowledge this simple fact. Also, ReMine, as anyone that has read his book or encountered him on the Internet or seen him speak will know, is much better at self-promotion than he is as scientific research. He has actually claimed that 'some of the best science' is done by quoting people! THAT is 'research' in the world of the creationist.

ReMine's central thesis regarding Haldane's dilemma is that, if Haldane's model is directly applied to human evolution (there are several good reasons why it should not be, but ReMine refuses to acknowledge this), there has not been enough time to explain human evolution from an apelike ancestor because Haldane's model only 'allows' for 1,667 beneficial mutations to become fixed in a population in the given timeframe (Haldane's model does not deal with non-beneficial mutations).

Hmmmm....

1. ReMine never provides any actual evidence that even if this number has merit, that it cannot account fo rhuman evolution from an apelike ancestor -which he cannot identify, which brings up:

2. Without knowing exactly what the human-ape ancestor was, one cannot possibly know which human traits have to be explained by beneficial mutations

3. ReMine never provides any documentation or even any rationale for how many beneficial mutations are required to produce any particular trait - or even if any particular trait has to be accounted for solely by beneficial mutations


Briefly, ReMine's application of Haldane's model is not any sort of 'disproof' or even a problem for human evolution or anything else. It is typical hubris from an arrogant, Dunning-Kruger data-point creationist.


As an aside, it is interesting to note that he, like nearly all 'professional' creationists, experienced a religious conversion prior to engaging in his anti-evolution activism, as he described it in an interview he did via the ARN website. Funny how one has to be a creationist in the first place in order to 'see' that evolution is wrong...

Is Jonathan Wells lying, or....

... merely demonstrating his poor comprehension skills?

You see, a couple days ago, PZ Myers demolished one of Wells' recent rants regarding HOX genes and evo-devo.

Well, the public relations folk that made Swiftboating a verb have taught the Discovery Institute minions well - respond at all costs. And so Wells did.

And in his response, Wells does what he does - he lies. That or he shows how incompetent he is. Or a little of both. And in one glaring example, he shows that he has learned well at the feet of his creationist brethren the art of 'out of context quoting' .

PZ had written:

If you're familiar with Wells and with Deadwood, you know what I mean. You'll just have to imagine that I am Al Swearingen, the brutal bar-owner who uses obscenities as if they were lyric poetry, while Wells is E.B. Farnum, the unctuous rodent who earns the contempt of every man who meets him.

Wells quotes him in his response thusly:

In case you think this is just a dry scientific dispute, Myers also wrote: “Wells is… [an] unctuous rodent who earns the contempt of every man who meets him."

Hmmmm....

I don't know about you, but I think that little episode says much more about about Wells' integrity and intellectual honesty than it does about PZ's "tantrum.".

It should make one - even Wlls' fans -wonder how much else of Wells' writings can be attributed to out of context quotes, embellishments, fabrications, misrepresentations, etc...
But the IDcreationist masses do not dare question their heroes...

P.S. - PZ responds to Wells whine-fest...

Strange - he doesn't LOOK like the kind of guy....

... that would write about himself in the third person, heaping accolades upon himself to make it appear that his arguments were well thought out.. Nor does he 'look like' the kind of guy that would, I don't know, become a moderator at a discussion board and delete or gut the posts of people that don't agree with his claims when he posts as himself...

I mean, that is just plain schizoid crazy dishonest and sleazy...

But hey - he's a creationist (and an engineer!), and that is the sort of thing they do... That and he engages in 'science by quote' and accuses everyone that disagrees with his claims of 'posturing' and 'misrepresenting' him....

No, he does not 'look like' that kind of person...

But looks do not always tell the whole story...

Phew! Not ALL engineers are arrogant creationist gasbags

Not that I ever actually thought they were - but holy cow, there are a lot of engineers in the creationist camp (at least in a relative way). PZ Myers 'challenges' non-creationist engineers (and doctors) to show themselves - and lots of them do.

Now if only they could talk some sense into this guy. Or this one. Or this one.. Or this one...

'Dr.'Jonathan Wells is an incompetent fraud

That or he is monumntally dishonest. I can really see no other possible option (except, perhaps, a combination of the two).
Take your pick, Intelligent Design Creationists - is Wells a dimwit or a liar?


If he is incomptent, why on earth does the Discovery Institute continue their association with him and why is he one of the 'spokemen' for the ID movement?*

If he is dishonest, same question.*


*It could be - and this is just speculation, of course - that the folks at the Discovery Institute don't care one way or the other, as long as he is spewing goo supportive of their religio-political positions...

I'm SHOCKED!

I mean, I thought these people never engaged in groupthink:

In a 5-4 decision, the court said the Clean Air Act gives the Environmental
Protection Agency the authority to regulate emissions of carbon dioxide and
other greenhouse gases from cars.
[...]
The court's four conservative justices _ Chief Justice John Roberts and
Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas _ dissented.

This horse died YEARS ago... but still...

... arrogant stupidity cannot be allowed to pass without comment.

Our old pal retired actuary and self-proclaimed expert on 'hard science predictive theories' Warren Bergerson is at it again at the ARN discussion forum.

This time, he is challenging the other posters at ARN to demonstrate their understanding of the data - that he declares to provide evidence that 'Darwinism' is false - in a paper that HE has not even read!

Amazing....