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....

Francis Porretto - typical arrogant, ideology-driven right-winger

Ironically, Fran Porretto deigned not to allow my response to his hysterics to see the light of day on his website - ironic because the gist of his original article was to complain about the supposed censorship of right-wing lies. But he did write me this funny email:

My dear fellow, if you had bothered to show me even a modicum of courtesy, I might have deigned to educate you, but given your behavior I think your leftist-anticorporatist religion would reject anything I might say, however relevant or specific. So I shall leave you to wonder what your arrogance and insults might have cost you. [*see what I mean about ironic? - sp*]

Perhaps your ignorance will be of some comfort to you as you and yours attempt to vote away American sovereignty and economic dynamism for the sake of a phantom "crisis" which, even if it were real, human action could never affect.

Yours,
Francis W. Porretto
Eternity Road

Lots of awfully certain statements in there for a 'scientist', no? I guess in right-wing circles not heaping undue accolades upon a ranter like Porretto is considered discourteous. The ironuies just keep a comin' from these folks...

So anyway, I replied:

Dear Fran the Physicist,

You are little more than a typical paranoid, overconfident right wing hack. Your inability to grasp simple facts - like for example why I left the link on your website in the first place - demonstrates this. You clearly did not read the article, for it said very little about GW as such and instead documented the deceptive, dishonest tactics of the producers of the video.

But your pomposity would not allow you even to acknowledge that.

Your arrogant ignorance fuels your paranoia.

Have fun in your miserable life. By the way - I am chronicling your right-wing nuttery for posterity. not that you'll need much help for that.

Not subtle, perhaps, but for crying out loud he did not even reply to what I referred to! He simply assumed that I was making a case for global warming! Any fool could have understood the reason I linked to the article I did - it documented the dishonest and decpetive practices of the producers of The Great Global Warming Swindle, which Porretto has been supporting! These right-wing paranoiacs can't seem to grasp simple concepts like that - most liklely because of their absolutist, ideologically-driven mindset.

Person A writes an article defending Subject A.
Person B informs Person A that the content of Subject A is in dispute.
Person A attacks Person B.
Person B tries to point out to Person A the true intent of the discourse.
Person A censors Person B, calls him names in a very projective manner.

Happens all the time with these Conmservative pseudo-know-it-all types.

Some Right-Wingers are just way too full of themselves....

Take Francis W. Porretto.

A fella wrote a short letter to the editor in my local newspaper urging folks to see the disgraced and deceptive video "The Great Global Warming Swindle." I remembered reading something about that, but I couldn't remember exactly what, so I did a little Googling. One of the returns that came up was to Porretto's site, specifically, this essay that he had written. Porretto writes glowingly of the video, but of course spends most of the screed yammering on about how the Left [insert scary music here] is trying to suppress it, censor it, etc. I had earlier visited a couple of articles on The Independent's website, in which the dishonesty of the claims in the video were pointed out (here is one example). So, I left the following message at Porretto's site:

You folks might want to read this:
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313pure_propaganda_the.php
Then again, probably not....

Terrible, right?

I guess so. Well, 'Fran' replies:

I could refute those claims about fifty different ways, Doppelganger. So could anyone who actually knows a shred or two about atmospheric physics. (I hold a Ph.D. in physics.) For one thing, CO2 is not the most potent greenhouse gas, water is.
But leaving trivia such as technical accuracy to the side for a moment, why should conservatives treat with respect the assertions of a writer—yourself—who positions himself as against “right-wing nuttery?” Or those of MediaLens, which claims to oppose “the distorted vision of the corporate media?”
Show a little respect for your political opponents if you want your opponents to take your views seriously. Among other things, some of us are brighter and better informed than you think—or are.

Well, I guess he told me, eh? A PhD in physics.... Well, I guess I am not as bright or as informed as Fran Porretto, but I do know how to use scientific journal search engines. And lo and behold, not a single return for Frannie the Physicist. I suppose I should not have expected any - such a towering intellect as Fran cannot waste his precious time doing scientific research. Istead, he busies himself writing 4 star book reviews for Ann Coulter - whom Fran the Physicist admires - on amazon.com.

But anyway, let's revisit Fran's hysterical reply to me:

I could refute those claims about fifty different ways, Doppelganger. So could anyone who actually knows a shred or two about atmospheric physics. (I hold a Ph.D. in physics.)

Well, I replied and asked Fran to refute the claims. I said I'd settle for one, not the 50 he boasts of being able to do. In fact, I am going to alter my reply to him thusly:

Just refute this:

"My [Carl Wunsch's] appearance in the ‘Global Warming Swindle’ is deeply embarrassing, and my professional reputation has been damaged. I was duped---an uncomfortable position in which to be."

You see, the video that you liked deceptively edited snippets from their interviews with Wunsch, for example, to make it appear as though he did not accept global warming on some level. So please, Fran, refute away! In fact, just refute that one way. I'm sure you can, what with your software engineer background and your PhD in physics! I mean, you DID read the article, didn't you?

For one thing, CO2 is not the most potent greenhouse gas, water is.

Great! Funny thing is, the article I linked to was not even about global warming per se, it was specifically about pointing out some of the deceptive, dishonest claims made in the video that you liked and defended. You did see the video, didn't you? You did read the article I linked to, didn't you, such that you just know you can refute the claims 50 ways? Or was that just the usual right-wing hubris gurgling up?

But leaving trivia such as technical accuracy to the side for a moment, why should conservatives treat with respect the assertions of a writer—yourself—who positions himself as against “right-wing nuttery?”

I did not realize that leaving a link would be considered an assertion. But hey - you are brighter and better informed than poor little me! Oh - by the way, your near hysterical response is a very nice example of right wing nuttery! Thanks! And as far as respect, well, I'll get to that in a moment...

Or those of MediaLens, which claims to oppose “the distorted vision of the corporate media?”

Yeah, OK... Did you have a point? I mean other than making it clear that you did not read the article I linked to that you will soon refute 50 ways even though it was not even about global warming per se?

Show a little respect for your political opponents if you want your opponents to take your views seriously.

OK - how is this:

Next time I talk to you, I'll use a baseball bat!

If you had a brain, you'd be a liberal!

You're a traitor!

Is that showing respect for you Fran?

Say - that really IS easier than thinking! And you CANNOT be upset by it - after all, I just borrowed a couple of oh-so-clever and witty phrases from right-wing pundit Ann Coulter, of whom you approve and admire!

Among other things, some of us are brighter and better informed than you
think—or are.

I am sure there are conservatives who are brighter than me, and liberals, too. I am also sure that there are better informed folks than me on all sides.

But I don't think it is you, Mr. Porretto. Not by a long shot.

Why am I not surprised?

Discovery Institute hack Jonathan Witt writes on his blog, regarding The Great Global Warming Swindle:

I haven't had a chance to watch The Great Global Warming Swindle, but Jonathan tells me it's very good, as does Jay Richards...

Presumable referring to hack propagandist Jonathan Wells.

Should anyone be surprised that the right-wing fringe crackpots at the Discovery Institute would give so deceptive a film good reviews?
Or maybe ol' Jonny and Jay just put as much critical thought into it as they would, say, when writing about evolution...

What's the deal with James Inhofe (R-OK)????

Suffering from a bout of insomnia last night, I was clicking through the channels at about 2 a.m. and stumbled across CSPAN (or was id CSPAN-2? Who knows...) re-airing Al Gore's Senate testimony on Global Warming. As fate would have it, that conspiracy-mongering loon James 'Global Warming is an anti-captalistic hoax*' Inhofe was questioning Gore. I onkly caught the last few minutes of Inhofe's posturing and antics, but it really made my stomach turn to see how transparently dishonest and idiotic the man is. First, he rambles on about how 'thousands' of scientists disagree with Gore's claims, then asks Gore if he is right and all those scientists wrong (I only heard Inhofe mention 2 people, not thousands, but like I said, I tuned in late...). Gore then replies by naming off a few examples of the national and international scientific organizations that have made statements regarding global warming and so forth. Inhofe retorts - after whining about not having a lot of time and interrupting Gore while he was trying to answer - that Gore did not answer his question!
And in that few minutes that I saw, it just went downhill from there (as far as Inhofe's ranting goes).

I watched a few more exchanges, but largely saw party-line posturing (with some notable exceptions).

But I came away wondering if Inhofe is for real - it was as if he had memorized some sort fo right-wing script in whihc the replies are pre-ordained, regardless of the actual discussion at hand. The 'you didn't answer my question' after Gore did exactly that is a case in point. Who do people like Inhofe think they are fooling? Perhaps themselves?



*I was going to insert a link to documentation that Inhofe believes this. I know he does, he made some sort of speech at some right-wing organization a few months ago saying just that - but as I did a simple search for such documentation, I discovered that there are A LOT of people - right wing people - that have signed on to such a notion. This is just moronic nationalism. Not only do a bunch of conservatives fully believe this, many go on to demonize whom they refer to as "so-called researchers" or "so called scientists" as money-grubbing liars and incompetents. I wonder if these folks but into 'Intelligent Design'?

You'd think a neurosurgeon and 'expert' on evolution could spell evolution-associated words correctly....

But apparently not:

"Profanity seems to be a particular problem with the computer-math Darwinists. A dysfunctional clad, perhaps. "

Well, Doctor Professor Egnor, the word is "clade", not clad.

Now, it could, of course, just be a typo, and I would be the last person to complain or point out the typos of others, seeig as how I make so many so often.

But part of me does not think this is a mere typo. I think Egnor was just trying to make it seem as though he knows a lot about evolution, but blew it. This is not so crazy when one considers some of the other really stupid things this latest creationist with a medical degree has written on the subject... Not that the folks at the DI would know, of course.

**UPDATE**

Googlebombing for Egnor

Seems hero-worshipping will get the DI and its mindless minions nowhere...

Wrote too soon.... PLEASE non-biologists - stop writing about biology as if you understand it!

Bergerson is a trainwreck of stupidity that just keeps crashing:


"First, the concepts that 1) genetic evolution occurs in all cell division sequences and 2) genetic evolutionary theories can be tested in any cell division sequence, follow from basic scientific logic. Second, there is no published concept or theory asserting that based on neo-Darwinian theories, or any other theories, genetic evolution can only occur in germ cell lines"

This guy is too ignorant to understand how little he actually understands...

On the dangers of pontificating on subjects you are ignorant of...

"Whether you introduce 9 variations per life into a 9 letter message or a 30 million letter message the impact is the same. "
- Warren Bergerson

The above quote can be found here, scroll about halfway down, written by the poster "LifeEngineer", which is one Warren Bergerson's screen name there. Bergerson is apparently an actuary (or an engineer, he never actually says) who has a bizarre disdain for Darwinian evolution. He repeatedly claims to have 'falsified' Darwinian evolution (i.e., "random mutation and natural selection"; RM&NS", which is not really Darwinian evolution anyway, but hey - its his party) by applying 'actuarial math' to 'data'. He has been making this claim for at least several years, yet has admitted to having never actually done the calculations. I guess he just 'knew' that the outcome would be to his liking, and so never did them. Nor has he ever been willing to provide the sources for his 'data.' Which is odd for someone claiming to have a better way of 'doing science'*.
Let us examine the above quote. First, to avoid being accused of misrepresenting the quote, I have linked to the source above but recreate the entire discussion board post in question below. I have bolded the portion that I quoted in the opening above.

DataDoc,
The evolution simulator provides a simplified illustration of the impact of random variations on complex messages. Random variation destroys rather than changes complex messages. Whether you introduce 9 variations per life into a 9 letter message or a 30 million letter message the impact is the same. Eventually random variations destroy complex messages with an essentially zero probability of producing an alternative valid message. You can perform a more realistic experiment with a long computer program or a long piece of text. The more complex example may have survive for several generations due to redundancy and non-essential coding but over the long term the result will be the same. The evolution simulator provides a simplified demonstration that random variation and natural selection would produce death and extinction. If you can not visualize that result from the simple example, then you can perform more formal analysis to confirm the same result. As I have said a number of times, high school students seem to quickly learn the lesson provided by the simulator. The concept does seem to be beyond the grasp of people who have more extensive indoctrinations.Added in Edit: It is interesting how many people believe that changing some a few minor details will automatically change the conclusion of an analysis. There are well established 'Sensitivity testing' techniques for determining if a variable or factor will materially impact the results or conclusions. It would be helpful if a few people actually learned something about this kind of testing

I will ignore for now the fact that Life Engineer does not seem to grasp how genes and other ‘complex messages’ do not function in the exact same manner.
The "evolution simulator" mentioned can be found here. Bergerson apparently does not understand what the so-called 'evolution simulator' purports to do, and if he really thinks that it "provides a simplified demonstration that random variation and natural selection would produce death and extinction" then he does not understand what 'random variation and natural selection' are, either. The 'evolution simulator', which, by the way, is the product of The Society for the Advancement of Creation Science, utterly (purposefully?) misrepresents the very nature of what 'random variation and natural selection' entails. The simulator claims to be 'searching' for the word "evolution." In order to do this, it presents a string of nine random letters. About twice a second, the entire 9-letter string is replaced by another random 9-letter string. Accompanying this exercise in silliness is a blurb about probabilities, with the predictable non sequitur that because it is so improbable for a single, specified 9-letter sequence (e-v-o-l-u-t-i-o-n) to arise randomly, that it must be impossible for even a small gene of 390 bases of DNA to have arisen in such a manner, and by extension, evolution could not have occurred, at least via 'random' natural means.

But does evolution postulate randomly replacing all the characters in a search string in each iteration (i.e., all the nucleotides in a genome in every generation)?

To anyone even remotely familiar with what genetics and evolutionary biology indicate, the answer is an obvious and clear-cut NO. That is, this organization is either, out of the sheer ignorance of its members or by calculated dishonesty, inaccurately portraying tenets of evolutionary theory for the purposes of making those unaware of the facts doubt its veracity.
And yet there is Warren Bergerson, supposedly with a background in actuarial math and engineering, not only defending the strawman argument (fallacy) of the 'simulator', but endorsing it and using as "evidence" that evolution is untenable.

Not only that, but he is claiming that there would be no difference in effect whether you are changing all 9 letters in a string of 9 letters or altering 9 letters in a string of 30 million!
I am not a mathematician, but I am fairly certain that there is a qualitative (not to mention quantitative) difference between a 100% change and a 0.000003% change.

As the subject is letters, let us consider a book whose total word volume is made up of 30 million letters. Let us say that during printing, there is an error and 9 letters are randomly changed from the original manuscript (of 30 million).

Do you think you might be able to muddle through the unchanged 29,999,991 letters (organized into words, of course) and figger' out what the book was about?
Say this happens during the course of 1,000 printings, and 9,000 letters are now randomly replaced. Now a full 0.03% of the letters have been randomly changed. Would the book be unreadable?

According to Bergerson, it would have been unreadable by changing only 9 letters in the first place.
A couple other statements struck me in Bergerson's diatribe:

The evolution simulator provides a simplified demonstration that random variation and natural selection would produce death and extinction. .

What Bergerson ignores is the fact that natural selection also gets rid of bad mutations (especially when coupled with sexual recombination). Not all of them, certainly, but it keeps them at a tolerable 'happy medium.'

As I have said a number of times, high school students seem to quickly learn the lesson provided by the simulator. The concept does seem to be beyond the grasp of people who have more extensive indoctrinations.

Bergerson's rants are typified by these snipes at the scientific establishment. Yet the irony of it is palpable - here is an individual that often denigrates** those he believes are less prepared than he to discuss certain topics pontificating on topics that he - demonstrably - knows very little about and is presenting his uninformed, unsupported opinions on these matters as unimpeachable truths. The arrogance is overwhelming.
Also, I wonder if Bergerson might consider the possibility that high school students - that get, by and large, very little if any instruction on evolution, or mathematical modeling, for that matter - simply do not yet have the information/knowledge to understand the concepts he is discussing? Apparently not.
A nice example of how evolutionary biology is best left to those that understand it.

*,**Bergerson advocates what he calls the "falsify and replace" method of "science" which is performed via "structured discussions." This is the methodology that he insists on applying in many discussions in which he takes part. In this method, an individual (himself) is allowed to make essentially any claim they (he) want. They are (he is) not required to provide any sort of evidence, rationale, or documentation that might support their claim. But, this claim stands as 'science' and unfalsified unless another person provides an alternative explanation using the same parameters as the originator. Some of the many obvious problems of this 'method' are discussed here. To see Bergerson's "superior method" in action, see this thread. It is long and tedious, but early on one can easily see what Bergerson's ('Life Engineer') method produces - an opportunity for him to stroke his ego, a way of allowing junk “science” to see the light of day, and little more, and one can also see that he tends not to follow his own rules nor even read, much less attempt to understand, his opponent's position. He, like so many creationists/'Intelligent Design' advocates/anti-'Darwinists', simply know that their position is the correct one, and that anything that might show their position to be in error is therefore itself in error, and those that advocate that other position are themselves deluded/ignorant/uninformed/etc.
If I were a psychologist, I'd write a book about this stuff.

Will this moron NEVER shut up?

I've written a bit about retired actuary Warren Bergerson (e.g., here, here, here), who seems to actually believe things like:
- only a handful of people in the world understand how to actually engage in scientific research (and he is, of course one of them)
- that he has disproved evolution by using actuarial math (despite having admitted to never doing the actual math)
- that all 'real' scientists employ his 'falsify and replace' version of scientific research (despite not being able to namea single person that does)
- etc., etc., etc.

Well, he is back at it - this time declaring that a paper on mutations in cancer cells - which he has not even read - disproves 'Darwin'.
It interesting to note that despite Bergerson's constant self-adulation and declarations of his intellectual superiority to all that dare disagree with his claims, he makes a number of high
school-level errors in his discussion on genetics. As quoted in that thread:

From conception until old age, cells in the human body continue to divide and reproduce. At each cell division, there is a chance of mutation and the resulting cells are subject to Darwinian natural selection. If you consider the following three different sequences of cell reproduction from the fertilized egg to:1. The sperm or eggs involved in reproduction 2. Healthy cells in mature individuals and 3. Cancer cells If the only significant genetic change processes involved are random mutation and natural selection, then you would expect or predict that the genetic change ocurring in the three sequences would be very similar. If you measured the average amount of genetic change in 300 of each type of sequence you would expect or predict based on neo-Darwinian genetic theory that the amount of measured genetic change would be close to the same for each of the sequences. Are there any readers who don't understand or agree with the predictions or expectations produced by neo-Darwinian theory? The opinions of anonymous ideologues are not really significant since we know they will say anything to support their silly ideologies.

Are there any readers who don’t understand or recognize that the actual measurements of genetic changes in cancer cells are in direct and dramatic conflict with the predictions of neo-Darwinian genetic theory?

Are there any readers who don’t understand or recognize that neo-Darwinian genetic theories are falsified by these experimental finding?

Are there any readers who don’t understand or recognize that the data gathered from this research is only compatible with intelligent design theories or intelligence based teleological theories?

Clearly the peer reviewers who allowed this research to be published
either didn’t recognize or understand the scientific significance of the finding so I would expect that despite the fact that the logic seem fairly straight forward, most readers are not able to follow or understand the logic. I would be interested to know at what point individuals failed to understand. If you want to avoid attacks from the Darwinists, you can contact me directly with your answers.

His errors (and projection) are later laid out by 'escherichia' and others, but Bergerson, poster-boy for the Dunning-Kruger effect, in his self-aggrandizing megalomania, just cannot accept the fact that he si out of his element.

Because, after all, everyone else is wrong and incompetent, not HIM...

Brain Surgeon 'challenges' "Darwinism"

Recently, the "Discovery Institute" has announced that it has recently added 100 more "scientists" to their list of folks that 'doubt Darwin' (see this for the requirements for signing).

One of the highlighted signatories is one Dr. Michael Egnor. Egnor is professor of neurosurgery and pediatrics at State University of New York, Stony Brook and a brain surgeon. WOW! Impressive, eh?
What is this brain surgeon's rationale for 'doubting Darwin'? Is it that the brain's complexity has forced him to conclude that 'random chance' couldn't have produced it? It is something about the anatomy of the brain? The functions of the neurons in the brain? The manner in which we perceive our surroundings?

Nope. He is all geeked up about Information.

On TIME magazine's science blog, Egnor's signing the DI list is mentioned, and the good - no, no - one who has reached the epitome of his field, the most eduicated folk in the world, a Who's Who in the world of science *- Doctor shows up to 'defend' his position, interesting bits bolded:

Mike,
I'm many things, but I'm not a 'fraud'. I believe what I said. I know a bit about science, as you do, and I have come to believe that the IDers have the better argument. For most of my career I had accepted Darwinism (I was a biochem
major), but I have come to believe that the genetic code and the extraordinarily complex 'nanotechnology' in cells pose a problem that is insurmountable for Darwinism.
Can random heritable variation and natural selection generate a code, a language, with letters (nucleotide bases), words (codons), punctation (stop codons), and syntax? There is even new evidence that DNA can encode parallel information, readable in different reading frames.
I ask this question as a scientific question, not a theological or philosophical question.
The only codes or languages we observe in the natural world, aside from biology,
are codes generated by minds. In 150 years, Darwinists have failed to provide
even rudimentary evidence that significant new information, such as a code or
language, can emerge without intelligent agency.
I am asking a simple question: show me the evidence (journal, date, page) that new information, measured in bits or any appropriate units, can emerge from random variation and natural selection, without intelligent agency...

Well, there you have it... A famous award-winning brain surgeon taken in by the bafflegab churned out by the propagandists at the Discovery Institute...
Odd that a biochem major would still rely on the old DNA=language analogy. That is a good analogy for introducing students - high schoolers, freshman college students - to what the genome is and does, but for a renowned Brain Surgeon to use it as a sort of 'evidence' for his awe-based position (what Dawkins calls the 'argument from personal incredulity' - I cannot figure out how this happened naturally, so some Designer must have done it!) is a bit of a disappointment.

Kimura showed in 1961 that adaptive evolution increases information in the genome. Perhaps the good Surgeon should read up on the things he finds so intriguing...


*The writers (propagandists) at WorldNet Daily - referred to, appropriately, as the WorldNUT Daily by rational folks - sure like to embellish to the point of caricature the things that they use to prop up their ideological fantasies, no? Most of these people on the dissent list are NOBODIES in the world of science, and more than half have backgrounds that are totally IRRELEVANT in evaluating evolution... Amazing...

Bill Dembski - Thy Name is Hypocrite

Over at Dembski's Den of Sycophantic Uninformed Acolytes (aka Uncommon Descent), Bill "Ted Haggard of Information Theory" Dembski himslef wrote a brief post on Feb. 9 titled, ironically, 'Dembski's pseudomathematical posturings.'
The post opens with:

"Here’s a critique of the mathematics of the design inference from an assistant professor of religious studies. The combination of ignorance and arrogance on the part of this individual is staggering.:

He then provides a small portion of the actual comments by the 'professor of religious studies' (the totality of which, along with some interesting commentary, by the 'professor of religious studies' can be seen here), and provides a link to one of his own bloviating essays on the subject. And that is all he writes. He does not need to write anything else - his sycophantic hitmen know what to do. A couple typical replies:

"When I came on here at UD, I discovered very quickly that ignorance and arrogance on behalf of many ID critics abounds at levels which I had previously not imagined possible."

" I’m sure you find these critiques humourous by now, but in any case I don’t see what he’s getting at anyway."

And the coup de grace, from a 'Jason Rennie':

Come on Dr Dembski. Of course an assistant professor in religious studies knows
more about mathetics than you do. I mean what have you got nothing more than a
mere phd in the topic. How could you possibly think that that would be able to
stand up to a doctorate in “religious studies” for indepth maths knowledge.

For shame Dr Dembski. He rightly took you down a peg.

Hang on a sec …

In other words, Dembski's bootlickers believe that some religious studies professor has no business daring to critique the meisterwerke of DR.DR. William Dembski, Intelligent Design Hero. Afterall, DR.DR. Dembski has a PhD in mathematics, surely HE is the expert on that material!

I wonder - does Dembski limit his commentary to the things HE has a PhD in (mathematics and one in philosophy, plus a Master's in Divinity)? Would his worshippers care if he strayed?

Well, let's see...

In the linked post, DR.DR. Dembski is commenting - pontificating - on vestigial structures. That is a subject that best fits in biology. Bill has no PhD. in biology. Or anything similar. Or even closely related. SHouldn't he, you know, refrain form criticising things he has no PhD. in, as his worshippers believe all others should do?

Or are they all just a bunch of hypocrites?

Not only are Dembski's cioments silly and uninformed, they are downright stupid.


But hey - he is an Intelligent Design Creationist, an anti-materialsim hero, a Research Professor in Philosophy at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, AND a Fellow at the Discovery Institute, a right-wing "think tank" dedicated to injecting religion into all aspects of culture.

HE can say ANYTHING he wants to, AND his utterances will be considered unimpeachable by his acolytes...

And I think that 'religious studies professor (Scott Paeth) said it quite nicely:


"Nevertheless, given the degree to which Dembski himself, without degrees in biology or biochemistry, relies on his own roster of "smart people" to justify many of the premises on which he bases his probability calculations, I fail to see how he, or his supporters, can claim the high ground on expertise and credentials. "

I just could not make this stuff up... (re: Bergerson, still)

It is amazing to see how little a person will pick up despite taking part in these 'debates' for so long. Of course, when the person is Warren Bergerson (aka 'Lifeengineer') - retired actuary and expert on all things, even thiose he knows nothgin about - I guess it makes a little more sense.

Read this thread.
I don't think I need to add any commentary, for Bergerson's sheer stupidity speaks fior itself.

But I did like this claim:

"... A small genetic change may be correlated with a large morphological change, but there is absolutely no evidence the small genetic change can cause the change. If I change an order for Boeing 727 to a Boeing 747, there may be a huge morphological change, but that does not mean the change from a 2 to a 4 causes a massive change in the airplane. Biologists are well aware of extremely complex changes in assembly processes associated with even small morphological changes. The fact that they intentionally ignore the evidence for the complexity of the changes and substitute a completely silly fairytale tells far more about the nature and behavior of academic biology than it does about evolutionary changes. ..."

If you are unfamiliar with Bergerson's schtick - well, he has a couple of schticks, ranging from his claim to have "disproven Darwinism" by using actuarial math (it turns out he never actually did the math, he just "knew" what the outcome would be), to his belief in some 'life force' that actually controls molecular interactions.
But the schtick of the day is his belief - insistence - that any change to an organism, no matter how inconsequential, requires "millions of changes" in order to occur. He claims that because a change, say, in a developmental gene might cause a morphological change via a series of events (which he does not believe can actually occur despite being provided with exmples- of course because he claims that any published science that supports Darwinism is intentionally misleading and fraudulent), that each subsequent change also had to be 'designed', and so the change in, say, a limb requires millions of such chances, rather than the reality-based explanation that a change in a developmental regulatory gene produces a cascade of events that result in the change(s).

Wow...

The "logic" of the creationist computer technician

I came across this little exchange that I had written about a year or two ago and done nothing with.

It chronicles/summarizes the discussion between a poster at the ARN discussion board, "Nobody" (who also happens to be Moderator 6 on that board - known for his heavy-handed anti-evolutionist censorship - and who may actually be one Bruce Fast.

It is a very revealing exchange for a couple of reasons. One, it shows the extreme inflexibility and dogmatism of the creationist, and two, it demonstrates the shallowness with which non-scientist creationists think.

Cut and pasted from my original write up (NOTE* most of the links no longer work as ARN tends to re-tool its software every year or two and they change all their URLs, in my cynical view, in order to prevent people form searching/linking to the ridiculous claims made there by anti-evolutionists):

*****

Here, following exchange took place:

Nobody, quoting Albert Einstein:
But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration towards truth and understanding.

‘Pixie’ responds:
Very true

Nobody replies:
Does this mean you now see design in life?



A little background:
‘Nobody’, who is also ‘Moderator 6’ at that site, is a computer programmer of some sort whose claims to fame are as follows:

1. Apparently doing keyword searches in Science news outlets for terms like ‘unexpected’, 'surprised’, ‘machine’, ‘amazing’, etc., posting snippets from the articles he gets, bolding the terms, and rarely, if ever, providing any sort of commentary (a few examples). Apparently, Nobody thinks that if a science-related press release has the words ‘unexpected’, etc. in it, it is bad news for evolution. Entertainingly, the articles often explain just the opposite – but he is no biologist, and cannot understand that, and when this uncomfortable fact is explained to him, he ignores it and repeats slogans.

2. Insisting that DNA is just like computer code, and via absurd extrapolation, that DNA therefore is designed [by God]. He is utterly unyielding on this child-like belief, and even employs it ass a mantra/slogan (for which he was once chastised for using by a fellow creationist, see last post).

Anyway, it went on:

Pixie:
No. It means aspire towards truth and understanding.

Nobody:
Ah. That's what I thought. So, to make sure I understand your position, you aspire towards truth and understanding while simultaneously denying the design of life. Right?

Now, it starts to get revealing:

Pixie:
I suspect your position is based on the dogmatic assumption that life is designed, and therefore anyone aspiring to truth and understanding must necessarily also believe life is designed. I guess that because this is an article of faith you do not entertain the possibility that life was not designed. You are perhaps thinking that I am equally dogmatic in my insistence that there is no design. I think not (but feel free to look for posts that suggest otherwise). It always makes he laugh when I read IDists trumpeting about how they are being open-minded. See for example, Teleologcal Blog, with the byline "Detecting Design and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds". As your post shows, open minds are antithetical to the ID position.

A few of Nobody’s pals then tried to help him out. But Nobody came back to the fray:

Nobody:
Even some evolutionists have admitted there is design. I was just wondering, after your extended stay here, if you had finally reached that first step. I see you still haven't.

Humble, these folks are not…

Pixie is then accused of being “dogmatic.” Nobody’s defender is shot down:

Myrmecos:
The short exchange between Pixie and Nobody in the first three posts on this thread indicate that Pixie's interpretation is correct, and yours is not. Nobody's quip "this means you now see the design in life?", offered as if it were the necessary conclusion of truth and understanding, indicates that nobody is unwilling to see any non-design position as valid. Hence, his is the more dogmatic position.

After a few more exchanges, Myrmecos writes:

1. I'd be much more open to the designist position if they'd actually make a positive argument,
2. So, why isn't anyone doing it?

To which our hero Nobody replies:

1. Advanced programming only comes from an advanced programmer. Is that positive enough?
2. It's being done every day. The HGP spent billions of dollars trying to understand the programming of life. What they found out is the we have only scratched the surface.

Poor fellow. He tries so hard – and if you read the things he writes, he really really thinks he is right!

But Myrmecos has to spoil the party:
No, it's circular. You assume your conclusion ("life has a programmer") in your premise ("life shows programming").

Do you think Nobody will get it?

Nahhhhhh……..